Deletion of Accusations of Arab Apartheid

Comment: Clear case of eenerNeener in response to Accusations of Israeli Apartheid, or whatever the article was titled. Pointy original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: A |synthesized mess of an attack article, apparently created to serve as some sort of |pointy counter-balance to Israeli apartheid, and article still on the hit-list of many, many POV warriors.  I really don't see why we allow the continued recreation of the same material under slightly different article titles.  Honestly, delete this, salt it, and take the proponents to ; this disruption has been tolerated long enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:POINT||WP:AE)

Comment: This is a textbook example of |original research by synthesis; a collection of unrelated quotes stitched together to support an original argument of the existence of "Arab apartheid". The author's approach seems to have been essentially to cherry-pick any book that contains the words "Arab" and "apartheid" in proximity to each other. There is no context and no assessment of whether the assertions made are in any way credible (only one point of view is represented - the accusatory one). It's very obvious that this article has been created as a POV counterpart - or retaliation - for the corresponding one about Israel. Comments like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Accusations_of_Arab_Apartheid&diff=prev&oldid=420529234 this one make it obvious what is going on with this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: My position is that all these wp:coatrack (as nomintator puts it best) should be deleted. However, to the extent we have Israel and the apartheid analogy, per  we must have this article. Before anyone jumps all over me with wp:othercrapexists, let me explain. The Israel apartheid runs into the same coatrack and misconstruction that this article does. However, if that article is kept despite those deficiencies and passes the relevant Wikipedia policies, there is very little to distinguish this article from the israel-apartheid article. Thus, this should be kept not due to wp:othercrapexists, but due to wp:gng and wp:npov
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: At the moment, this article is a bit of a |synthesis - it has plenty of sources demonstrating that allegations of apartheid have indeed been made against Arab countries, but few about the phenomenon of 'Arab apartheid' as such, suggesting that collecting these instances into one article may not be justified. I would be more happy with it if the scope were broadened to include non-Arab countries, and it were renamed to something like Apartheid outside South Africa; or alternatively if it were merged into the article Racism in the Arab world. The ''content'' here is worth keeping, but not in the way it's currently presented
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as per CJCurrie and Tarc. As CJCurrie says, if there's appropriate material, an article specifically on, say, the Sudanese case can be created. Part of what happened with the Israel and the apartheid analogy article is that it moved from a back-and-forth about the accuracy of the criticism to an article about the debate as a phenomenon in itself. That clearly has not happened here. People making accusations of "Arab apartheid" is insufficient for an article, so Google searches of the phrase are unhelpful. There would need to be appropriate articles ''about'' the criticism to avoid this being  and WP:coatrack
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:synth)

Comment: It somewhat feels like a case of eenerNeener in response to Israel and the Apartheid Analogy. Not the best basis for creating a new article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)