Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid outside South Africa

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 of the debate was No Consensus 8 delete, 5 keep/merge Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid outside South Africa

This article is a biased joke, attempting poor comparisons with apartheid in South Africa. It's only references are simply 'opinion' from radio and the media in general. What it mostly describes is Racial segregation (and attempts to characterise any instance of that, or any instance hinting of it - as apartheid), which is already covered in that article. Other articles already accurately (and without the bias) deal with what is in this one. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 05:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Agree. --Hottentot
• Delete - Personal essay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm sorry to suggest deletion for an article that so many people have worked on, but that "arguments are sometimes made" doesn't make something worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --William Pietri 07:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. For any section that has multiple sources, merge to that section's base article. E.g, move references about Israeli "apartheid" to article on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --William Pietri 21:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Or to racial segregation Unbehagen 12:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Apartheid was a South African system, and only a South African system. CalJW 13:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - although some people do use apartheid as a synonym of any kind of segregation, racial included, it is not accurate - Skysmith 15:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• The Apartheid is the former system of segregation in South Africa. However, the international law defines a crime against humanity of apartheid; basically, as any crime against humanity - such as murder, torture, or persecution - committed in the context of a regime of racial oppression. (See, for example, the elements of crimes at the web site of the International Criminal Court.) The allegiations against other countries may well be worth a mention; in the main apartheid article if not in a separate one. The current article is too biased, so my vote is cleanup, and then either keep or merge. - Mike Rosoft 22:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inclusion is arbitrary and not defined, duplicate with racial segregation JFW | T@lk 01:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with apartheid, then clean up. (I'd prefer a merge to a keep.) I'm surprised at the nom that "It's [sic] only references are simply 'opinion' from radio and the media in general." This article is more sourced than half of the others I have seen on Wikipedia today! If a large group of media outlets keep making the same point, whether or not one agrees with it, that's noteworthy, IMO. Jacqui ^{★ 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}
  • Is that really sufficient to have an encyclopedia entry about it? Many more media commentators have questioned the intelligence of George Bush or the honesty of John Kerry, but I'd have an issue with an article about either of those based only on the fact that people in the media have said it. If this material is worth keeping (which I'm not yet seeing), I'd rather see it in articles about the things people are comparing Apartheid to. I.e., Israel, Saudia Arabia, Spain, Jim Crow laws. --William Pietri 06:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The George W. Bush and John Kerry articles should have information on the fact that media outlets keep asking certain questions about them, yes. Just like an article about apartheid should have information about how the word/concept is currently being used by the media. I am interested in keeping the information no matter what, but I think it's true that the information would fit better into apartheid for the valid reason you list. Jacqui ^{★ 20:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}
      • Good point. I'm changing to merge as well. Hooray for consensus! --William Pietri 21:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated by michaelg, in particular the fact that the material is dealt with elsewhere. It strikes me as ironic that Jim Crow is discussed as a form of apartheid, when Jim Crow pre-dated apartheid by many years. Perhaps the main article on apartheid should be re-titled "Jim Crow outside the United States." (I jest. But the point is, Jim Crow was bad enough, and its own article describes it as being bad enough, without adding the irrelevant fact that it is sort of like some other phenomenon on another continent that was just starting as Jim Crow, thankfully, was nearing its end.) 6SJ7 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge But what's the betting that at least one country gets "lost" en route. Unbehagen 12:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Clean Up - I disagree with Michael. Deletion request comes from a claim that the article is "liberal-slant"- pov, irrelevant to whether the article has merit. The article has substantiation in facts, outside of radio and media.
  • Merge After reconsidering, I understand Michael's logic. I think the sections of the article are best sent to articles that more clearly explain the issues they raise.Varun Vuppala
• Keep and expand - Well sourced and refrenced and encyclopeadic, no valid NPOV reason to delete.--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:03, 12 November 2005 (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.