Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. I will leave it to those more experienced working on these articles to carry out the merge. BD2412 T 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid wall

offensive term. Delete or merge with Israeli security wall Fullsome prison 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. Jayjg was the one who initially ripped the section out of Israeli West Bank barrier. I'm not a fan of the term, but removing mention of it from the article, plus a delete and protect would mean that anyone searching for the term, which is at least somewhat notable, would not locate the article or a redirect for the item they are looking for. I have suggested that this term be summarized in very short paragraphs in the main article and a redirect placed to Israeli West Bank barrier. The redirect would then only be used when searching on the term -- which is what people are looking for! All internal wiki links should use the agreed upon term of Israeli West Bank barrier. Also, this edit seems like a large copyvio as it is copied directly from the source article. WP:R says that redirects should be deleted if offensive, but not if term is discussed in article -- which it was before being converted from a redirect. I don't have patience for POV wars, so I lost interest in this article a while ago. --MattWright (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Humus. Armon 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. The redirect will implpy that the two are the same, which is POV. --CommonGround 18:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete don't redirect merge any useful content to west bank barrier Elizmr 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The phrase is widely used. A google search for the specific phrase returns 394,000 hits [2] whilst "Isreali West Bank barrier" returns only 11,700 hits [3] and "West Bank barrier" renders 179,000 hits [4]. The article is not about the barrier per se but about the use of the term and it is our job not to censor phrases we don't like but to determine whether a phrase has entered the popular lexicon or not ("Apartheid wall" passes that test) and ensure that the articles about them are balanced and NPOV but, if consensus is against keeping then we really have no choice but to merge and redirect as, like it or not, it's more likely that a user will search for "Apartheid wall" than any other term. Pretending the term does not exist and attempting to ban it by deleting without redirecting does a disservice to users and therefore to the project. Homey 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to either Israeli apartheid (phrase) and/or to Israeli West Bank barrier depending on the perspective: If the rationale is to examine Israel's policies as co-inciding with "apartheid" then the so-called "apartheid wall" is part of that subject when viewed in those terms, on the other hand, if the purpose of the term is basically to provide a "colorful pejorative adjective" to a known subject, it can safely and accurately redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. Not every colorful POV term gets its own article when a reasonable good NPOV article about it exists already. Thus, for example, even a widely used term like heart attack gets redirected to myocardial infarction, or for an article about wife beater one must go to the article about spousal abuse, and so on and so forth, thus merging is a good solution here too. IZAK 22:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete don't redirect merge any useful content to west bank barrier per nom and IZAK, Elizmr and others Zeq 05:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep Terminology VERY commonly used in discussion and discorse. No reason why Wikipedia shouldn't reflect its usage. Amibidhrohi 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: My concern about a redirect, which I believe I expressed on the talk page for this same article many months ago when the suggestion was made there, is this: If you search on "Apartheid Wall" and it redirects you to Israeli West Bank barrier, does that imply that Wikipedia is "saying" that the barier is an "Apartheid Wall"? I don't know. If I were a "newcomer" and saw that redirect and had not read this discussion among the thousands and thousands of non-article pages, that is what I might think. I don't know how to resolve the issue, I am just pointing it out. 6SJ7 00:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • 6SJ7: Let's avoid circular reasoning (which by the way, redirects to begging the question -- how ironic!) Wikipedia is not that sophisticated yet that it can provide every last nuance to all words, phrases, and facts. Wikipedia is not "saying" anything! Wikipedia is just a bunch of PCs, servers, and anonymous editors hooked up together on the Internet. A good merge or redirect, in this instance to the Israeli West Bank barrier which will actually have information about how the barrier referred to by the term "apartheid wall" by some critics came to be, which will then actually qualify and explain what the fuss about the "apartheid wall" name is all about. You can't wish it away because you don't like it. Using the above analogy, maybe you should possibly ask if the redirect of "heart attack" to myocardial infarction means that a "heart attack" always means a "myocardial infarction" only, even though very often people use the words "heart attack" as a figure of speech denoting great surprise or shock and not God-forbid a real heart attack. Obviously, Wikipedia cannot cater to every last fool on Earth and ultimately "newcomers" reading these articles are required to use their brains and discretion, as they should always be doing. IZAK 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Humus. ---Alsayid 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Not an independently notable term. Iron Curtain is a better analogy than any apartheid-related terminology. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not our role to suggest a better analogy but to recognise when a phrase has entered widespread public use and merits an article. Homey 03:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Humus. TewfikTalk 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. // Liftarn 10:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the title itself is POV Even having a redirect in place with that title supports a POV. --Bachrach44 15:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this blatant POV fork of Israeli West Bank barrier. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Timothy Usher 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete obvious POV fork of Israeli West Bank barrier. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant parts into Israeli West Bank barrier and Israeli apartheid (phrase). Not 100% convinced about redirect to the barrier article, maybe the Israeli apartheid article would be better (assuming that isn't deleted)? --Coroebus 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. A POV fork if there has ever been one. -- Heptor talk 17:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. Definite POV form. -- TheMightyQuill 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. This is a duplicate article and possible pov fork. When merging, care should be taken that all positions on the barrier get good and fair representation. gidonb 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever is not a POV rant to Israeli West Bank barrier, then delete this. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per above. POV forking is not an accepted way of solving content disputes. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. While this term is prevalent in contemporary dialogue, it isnot widely accepted by all parties; some reject it as tendentious and misleading. I'd think it belongs as part of another article (though can't say which) on the topic of Israel's policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Deborahjay 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant POV fork GabrielF 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Israeli apartheid (phrase). Ted 02:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Runcorn 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - POV fork --Aldux 20:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. CJCurrie 02:26, 4 June 2006 (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.