Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fourth nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close until the arb com is done with their work this is premature. The claimed violation of WP:POINT has not been sustained by the committee as no result has come out of the process. For current status, see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Perhaps when the arb com is finished we can line up all the allegations of apartheid together and delete them all, but now is not that time. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of apartheid

Allegations of apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The recreation of this article was a WP:POINT violation (See [1] for evidence) and it remains a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:SYNTH. It served as the mother for a series of WP:POINT articles such as Allegations of Chinese apartheid, Allegations of French apartheid etc which have since been deleted or renamed.

This article is a synthesis and OR because it brings together topics that no other author or source have brought together in order to create an argument. The title "allegations of apartheid" is highly misleading since, in most cases, not even the sources cited allege that actual apartheid is being practised by the countries named. Rather, in a number of instances, the term apartheid is used as an analogy or rhetorical flourish rather than as an actual allegation. For instance there is no actual allegation that "water apartheid" is a form of the crime of apartheid or is a form of legalized racial segregation. If it's necessary to have a page that lists all the article in which the term "apartheid" is used then a disambiguation page should be created as suggested by User:Kbolino in his edit comment here [2] but spinning an article out of a series of unconnected instances in which a term is employed is pure WP:SYNTH bordering on original research. I and a few others have attempted to rewrite the article to make it acceptable, it was previously little more than a laundry list of unconnected allegations, but the fundamental problems with the article remain so it should be deleted. Lothar of the Hill People 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as mover. Lothar of the Hill People 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as violating the prime directive. Bearian 21:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.