Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)
as a phrase that, even as it expresses a POV, is notable (toward which proposition see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace (second nomination)).  Were we to be using the terminology as descriptive in an article, I'd object; here, though, our article is apropos of a trope that is increasingly common (to be sure, if the article is not/cannot be properly sourced w/r/to the frequency with which the term is used/the prominence of certain users, deletion would be in order).  The article oughtn't to include original research, of course; instead of attempting to prove the correctness of the phrase, it ought to detail the arguments of others who make claims for and against the phrase.  We don't take |original research, but we can compile opinions recorded in secondary sources, even where the primary sources are individuals who undertake original research or push a POV (Charlie Sheen's conculsion that something other than an airliner hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 attacks|11 September is original research or derived from the original, largely unsubstantiated research of others but nevertheless notable).  Our article ''Better dead than red'', about another notable tendentious locution, provides a fair examplar around which this article can be developed
— User:Jahiegel, 00:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research)