Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid
per the nom, who could have been more explicit about the core shoddiness and illegitimacy of this article.  This article is one ''massive'' violation of Wikipedia's policy against |original research and its |guidelines for notability.  There are absolutely no secondary sources, zero sources, discussing the topic of the article, allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid.  You need secondary sources, per  and  except in "rare" cases, usually meaning unfolding events.  '''An article about a pattern of political rhetoric detected by a Wikipedian but not remarked upon by ''any'' reliable source anywhere is decidedly ''not'' one of those rare circumstances where the need for secondary sources is to be waived.'''  The problem here isn't that comparing Saudi human-rights violations to South African ones is outrageous or invalid; on the contrary, Saudi Arabia might be one of the few countries to whom apartheid South Africa would compare quite favorably in terms of human rights.  The problem is that ''the comparison itself'' appears to have no notability.  No one's ever remarked upon it, discussed it, debated it – in short, established its significance.  A number of writers have used the term "apartheid" in its generic dictionary sense for systemic segregation, and a Wikipedian has data-mined the internet and gathered up all these primary sources into a quote farm on a topic not discussed by any reliable source.  The actual topic here is Human Rights in Saudi Arabia; the Wikipedian who created this has simply culled from the voluminous literature on that subject those sources which happen to use the word "apartheid," either for rhetorical emphasis or merely in passing, and lined up a sequence of block quotes with little transitional sentences in between.  You can't just have monkeys typing words and phrases into a search bar and robots arranging the results into a WP article; you need sources establishing the topic as notable in the first place.  It would be helpful if the "keep" votes above would reconsider; some of their votes seem rather careless and reflexive, or premised on the existence of OTHERSTUFF.  Those standing by their "keeps" should at any rate specify exactly why they think this article qualifies as one of those "rare" occasions in which the  and  requirement of secondary sources establishing notability does not apply
— User:G, 19:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOR||WP:N||WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:NOR||WP:N (Wikipedia:No original research)