Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 16

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 keep. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairbrook Elementary School

Fairbrook Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN Elementary school, little content Rackabello 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources or evidence of notability - just because a school exists does not mean that it's notable! Ali ^(t)_(c) 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed vote to weak keep - sources have been added. However, the article provides little content about the school, and the Blue Ribbon honor is not very unique. Ali ^(t)_(c) 02:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of notability Corpx 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - A Blue Ribbon school, the highest award a school can get in the US, together with other multiple sources means it easily crosses the WP:N threshold. TerriersFan 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• That was almost 10 years ago. Even then, I don't such an award should confer notability upon an elementary school Corpx 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• The award does not confer notability upon an elementary school; only WP:RS can confer notability upon an elementary school. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If elementary schools are eligible to receive it, then there is no reason to say it should count for middle schools and high schools but not elementary schools as far as wiki is concerned. Postcard Cathy 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn school that asserts no basis for warranting encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 21:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, combined with ample reliable and verifiable sources, demonstrates notability by any interpretation of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. While most elementary schools will be unable to claim notability or provide sources to support a claim, this article -- and this school -- clearly surpasses the qualifications of notability. As notability is not temporary per WP:N, and it doesn't disappear or fade away, the fact that one of the awards was received ten years ago is utterly irrelevant. The claim that this article "asserts no basis for warranting encyclopedic treatment" is utterly false and is a mere restatement of the baseless claim that "no schools are notable". Alansohn 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Beavercreek City School District--JForget 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete the highest honor the federal govt gives, and a rather meaningless one at that. Awarded for a single year. It goes to a different set of schools every year, with only a few repeats [18] eventually, like championships once in a single sport, most schools will get it. The awards of likewise insignificant. Most elementary schools are probably non notable no matter how hard the editors try. DGG (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am sorry but this fundamentally misrepresents the award. What is the basis for saying it is meaningless? The federal government doesn't think so nor do educationalists. The few repeats are a function of the difficulty in gaining the award. With under 300 awards per year out of 133,000 or so schools it will remain exclusive for many years to come. Agreed that most elementary schools are probably non notable - but this one plainly is. TerriersFan 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• There are plenty of these awards that go around. I know here in Texas, they confer titles of "commended" or "distinguished" or whatever else based on standardized test scores + some other minor factors. These ratings change every year due to the results. It's only good for hanging a banner outside the school and that's it. The Blue ribbon is given to "public and private K-12 schools that are either academically superior in their states or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement." I think that's a pretty loose criteria for inclusion. If this school was on the blue ribbon list for a number of years, then maybe it indicates notability, but just 1 appearance 10 years ago? Corpx 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Texas have their own Blue Ribbon awards which are plainly less notable than the federal ones. There are not plenty of these to go around - as I say above less than 300 per year out of 133,000 schools - and the criteria you mention are just to get considered not to be awarded. Also, the article now has the multiple sources to meet WP:N independently of the award. TerriersFan 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• To elaborate on TerriersFan's responses, most of the issues raised are answered rather clearly in the Blue Ribbon Schools Program article. About 300 of the 133,000 eligible schools in the United States are cited per year, a little over 2/10's of one percent of eligible schools. In the 25 years since its inception in 1982, 5,200 different schools have been recognized, less than 4% of all eligible schools in the United States. At this pace, it would take 600 years or more for all schools to be recognized, assuming no duplicates. Schools cannot apply for an award with five years of previous recognition, making it rather difficult to get a streak going. An even cursory overview will demonstrate that the national program is far more selective than any of the state recognition programs. Most importantly, this award, and other recognition received by the school, is documented and supported by reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. As notability is not temporary, the receipt of the award ten years ago, 25 years ago, or some other comparable award received 100 years ago would all be equally as notable as any award received today. Alansohn 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• The criteria for qualification under this award is extremely weak (in my opinion). A self-evaluation and a plan for the future, that's it? No objective criteria? I'll be satisfied of notability if a school has won more than one blue ribbon Corpx 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• DGG is quite right; the Blue Ribbon thing is more guff that, like winning a football championship, is hardly grounds for establishing encyclopedic notability. When did the notability guidelines become simply a question of being "documented and supported by reliable and verifiable sources?" Document and verify all you wish, but for many editors, citing this award as grounds for retention is a real stretch. Eusebeus 06:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Since WP:N became the notability standard. TerriersFan 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - there is not purpose for these types of articles; existence does not equate to needing or having an article about each and every school in the world. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - What is "these types of articles"? I fully agree with your last point but what is the relevance to this particular school? Bridgeplayer 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Any award given to 300 schools a year isn't exclusive enough to make a school notable by itself. •:• Will Beback •:• 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no verification of notable events, awards, alumni or other history. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I see nine references, most of which are providing "verification of notable events, awards, alumni or other history". Are we reading the same article? Alansohn 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep view - I gather that for notability per WP:N you need multiple sources which this page has. It seems to me that insufficient attention has been given to the peace award - any award given to just 1 school in a state is notable. I also don't see the criticism of the Blue Ribbon; some sort of standard to keep/delete school articles is needed and this seems as good as any. Bridgeplayer 23:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep While Blue Ribbon Schools are not as selective as, say Ivy League admissions, they do indicate the school has more than adequately met minimal standards and that shows leadership on the part of administration and an effective teaching staff. There are too many schools out there now a days that can not say the same. Postcard Cathy 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn and TerriersFan. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:N. Noroton 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the Blue Ribbon satisfying WP:N, and let's find a better one to argue about. -- But|seriously|folks  18:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the WP:RS satisfying WP:N. The Blue Ribbon satisfies WP:CSD#A7 as would notable events, awards, alumni or other history if needed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• How does WP:CSD apply here? Corpx 07:10, 22 July 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.

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 Delete. Walton^One 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Malek

Ben Malek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No demonstrated notability by reliable independent sources as all the links are related to him or for promotion purposes as he is an author. A google search doesn't turn up any indepedent sources, mainly trivial listings selling his book or his own articles. This was a contested prod and the article was deleted previously under CSD for no assertion of notability. The author of the article also probably has a conflict of interest with the subject as per this note on my talk page: [19]. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I simply can't find anything. Anyway, COI doesn't matter, but there just doesn't seem to be anything for somebody who's been so talked about, supposedly, according to our article. I'm concerned also that the only returned result out of only 12 for "Ben Malek" and Domino is our article--maybe it's a fake article. KP Botany 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• So if you do the second search using his correct last name, does your concern go away? Malibailey

• Who is this article about, Ben Malek or Ben Malekzadeh? If it's about Ben Malek, I'll search for Ben Malek, and that's the article whose deletion we are discussing. Create an article on Ben Malekzadeh if that's who we're discussing, and I will look. KP Botany 04:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's the same person. He used to go by Malekzadeh and has started to go by Malek the last few years when I saw him speak I will note the article as such if it makes you happy --Malibailey 05:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's still delete. There's just nothing there about him. If he had all these book deals and stuff, I'd find something besides blogs about him. Heck, I'm mentioned on more prestigious blogs and in more prestigious newspapers than he is, and there is no article about me on Wikipedia. I'm generally an inclusionist, you wouldn't believe the people I've kept and the lengths I've gone to, but Malek needs more available sources about him for this article to be kept. If he's really as notable as you say he is, these sources will be forthcoming, and I suggest you go to the WP:MOS and prepare to write that article. But, there's nothing about him right now. Even those talking about him can't deliver more than sound bites. KP Botany 04:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - notability and coi —Travis^talk 19:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - New information presented requires me to change my opinion. —Travis^talk 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Do a search for "Ben Malekzadeh" and you will see a 1460 hits. How does this promote him in any way? The links are to the Library of Congress, which does not sell books. If you click on any link that is included, you will see. The 3 magazines mentioned are all print magazine that were formerly published by Penton Media, which is a very large publisher. One of the books was published by McGraw-Hill which is not a small publisher. Take a look at people listed under category computer specialist. Most of them just say the person works for Microsoft.. Is that Notable? This person was a columnist for a technical magazine for over 6 years, has authored 2 books, contributed to a dozen more books, and been known as an expert in his field. What does it take to be notable? People in his field recognize his name. Do another search and you will see, but this time use his pen name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malibailey (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 July 2007}}

• Keep I posted the article with "malekzadeh" in parenthesis. He is a legitimate author. 199.20.54.1 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

— 199.20.54.1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Legitimate, yes. But notable? Besides, it still appears to violate WP:COI. —Travis^talk 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, he's real; I've heard of him and we may well know at least one person in common but even as a published author he's just another guy who wrote a how-to book or two. We're not a directory of published authors, only of notable ones. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, What does it take for someone to be considered notable? I would think someone who excels in their field of study or career, and who has made contributions to that field should be considered notable. I don't know who you know that knows him or not, but I am a fan of his writing, reading his books and columns for over 6 years has helped me and many of my collegues in their careers. He's not a blogger, he's not someone that has written things for websites, but someone that actually wrote books that were published by major publishers, spoke at conferences that regarded him as an expert, and even some of the articles he wrote were notable enough to be translated and re-published into Spanish, Italian and French. If you think it is that easy to get a book contract from companies like McGraw-Hill, I think you should all try and see how far you get. I disagree with the comment of "he's just another guy who wrote a how-to book or two. Even if that is all that he did, does he have to cure cancer to be considered notable? There are tons of people that have done less and you guys aren't going through nominating them for deletion... Malibailey

• Comment, All of you citing COI, would any of you care to say under what grounds it is COI? It is not financial, self-promotion, autobiography, etc... So state your caseMalibailey

• You stopped reading wp:coi too soon. The next topic is "Close relationships." The author, Khansajed claims that Malek was a mentor of his. I think that fits the definition of close relationship. —Travis^talk 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I did see that, but I wouldn't consider what I said to be a COI. I fixed the article,I changed the links away from Amazon, and added my own 2 cents. So even if he did write it originally, I stepped in and added what I thought would take and COI away from it. Malibailey

• Comment. Just as a note, since this has come up a lot, COI is not a deletion criterion, but it is usually worth noting, especially in cases of disputed notability (in general, people tend to think those that have affected them personally are more significant than would otherwise be the case). The deletion nom is on the basis of notability and lack of reliable indepedent sources for that notability. COI is just a side note. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• After rereading the article and Cquan's comment, I am retracting my COI complaint. Thanks for the clarification. —Travis^talk 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

* Cquan... Thanks for being fair on the COI, but I still want to know your definition of notable, because I think he is. Have you done a search on "Ben Malekzadeh" ? Malibailey

• I did, as I said in the nomination. I have yet to see one from an independent reliable source that does not qualify as trivial. This includes biography pages from places that sell his books. Feel free to present sources here to, as making the claim of notability properly sourced will fix this whole situation. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I did a thorough search, and as you have seen, it is very hard to find things any time someone writes a few books. There are too many people trying to capitalize by having links to the books, and therefore the searches get diluted. The only independent articles I found on him make him notable for charity work that he had done (Big Ben Foundation- 10 years ago) and when he worked for the Philadelphia Eagles from the archives at morningcall.com

However, I do see that notability does talk about name recognition, as he does have name recognition for people like me and my peers in his field of work, and he is also widely cited by his peers- per wiki criteria:

Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. - He fits into this category The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.

Many of his peers have cited him in their blogs all over the world. They have taken pieces of his work and writing and cited it within their blogs or websites. As you can see, they are located throughout the world.

Hong Kong/Sydney

Italy

Switzerland

USA

USA

USA

Switzerland

Cited in a book written by one of his peers

Cited in a Lotus/IBM Forum

Japan

Russia

Russia

Israel

You can also look at some of the cached pages that are linked here:

zoom info

There is also abook review from secondary sources (outside of the ones on the sites that sell it)

collective body of work-independent book His Best of Ask Ben book is a collection of his writings for over 6 years that was compiled and re-published.

internationally significant libraries. Library of Congress? Is that an Internationally significant Library?

Anyway, I have spent way too much time on this already. Cquan- if you don't want to think someone is notable, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. There aren't enough people going through this page to give their comments- seems like the same few people. If you are not in this field of work, you would not recognize him, and as many books or articles that he may have written isn't going to convince you. There are not lots of articles out there about his work, other than the ones that point out his publications, which is why he is notable- although you disagree. As I mentioned earlier, it is not that easy to get multiple book deals, and I know he has made huge contributions to his field. Not sure if you know him and have a personal vendetta against him or what, but if all these citations above- all from independent sources from different countries that cite his work doesn't convince you, I don't think anything else will. --Malibailey 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, the point is, you don't have to convince me...you have to convince enough for a consensus, for which, at the moment, I would not be part of due to lack of convincing evidence. This guy sounds like he has limited notability within a certain technical community, but frankly this is all way too labored. The point is that Wikipedia is not supposed to help establish notability or recognition of people that aren't already notable or worthy of recognition. If it were otherwise, it would amount to advertising and promotion, no matter how you word it. I admire the effort, but to me it just demonstrates that this guy lacks the notability you're trying to establish. I mean, has he even won an award for anything? Or was his book a best seller? Those would easily establish notability. Oh yeah, and I hardly consider the Library of Congress a good way to establish notability since they try to get copies of EVERYTHING. Sorry, but it shouldn't be this difficult, which makes me think the article shouldn't be here. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 04:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I do not know if he has won any awards, I did not find any references to any. I know at one point, his McGraw-Hill book was on the top 100 best seller list at Amazon, but I did not want to get back to promoting books, which he probably made money from- then you would cry promotion. I know I pre-ordered the book almost 1 year before it was published. I'm not trying to establish his notability- he already has that. I was trying to establish his notability to you, since your background is not in computers or Lotus Notes, and therefore you would not know him. Up until recently, many people didn't know who David Beckham was, and many Americans still don't know him, because they just don't follow or play soccer... doesn't make him any less notable since he is the most popular athlete in the world. I agree, Ben Malek is not a notable person to an average person- yes, you are an average person. But as I mentioned, to someone in his field, he is. Cquan, Lotus Notes has nothing to do with Biotechnology, or Chemical Engineering, and therefore I wouldn't expect you to know him or find him notable, as it is not an area of your interest.. But makes me wonder why you are so interested and involved in this article. You have nominated it twice for deletion, once speedy, while thousands of other articles are getting published. You should get involved in articles you know something about and keep your hands off of areas outside of your expertise. Looking at your contributions, you are really stuck on this one... You have been focused on tissue engineering, biotechnolgy, patent law, University of Rochester and Ben Malek? Doesn't that seem strange? --Malibailey 04:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks for the advice (which I've heard repeatedly from others). Unfortunately, this is a general encyclopedia, not a Lotus Notes/Computer encyclopedia. IMHO, you should be trying to contribute articles with the general audience in mind. Yes, I certainly am an average reader in this subject, which is why I'm sceptical. Of course I will contribute more frequently and (hopefully) authoritatively in subjects I know a lot about, but that hardly means I should "keep my hands off" other subjects. This is a freely editable project and opinions, even non-expert/in the field ones are valid. If you think only experts should contribute to articles, then you've missed the point of Wikipedia. And obviously, I'm not the only one who is skeptical about this article...perhaps a little vocal, but not alone...since yes, I nominated for deletion (i.e. expressed a concern), but I didn't delete it...for the speedy, feel free to pester User:Riana about that. If the consensus here says it stays, then it stays...and will probably shrug off any potential future concerns because of it. That's the point of these community discussions. Now, I don't believe in just voicing an opinion with no reasoning behind it, so as soon as I see sources for notability that satisfy WP:NOTE, then I'll be all for keeping the article, but not before. Sorry. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment You are correct and sorry, I guess your input still means something, although if I don't find biotechnology that interesting (which I don't), I wouldn't start questioning everything in articles about it. The reason I pointed it out is that it seems you are really out to make sure this article goes away, no matter what evidence is presented. It's been going back and forth. I thought I already showed you tons of sources for notability that satisfy WP:BIO Read the guidelines under the creative professionals section which I cited above. It does state some things that would make the person notable, and even if the Library of Congress may not be a valid argument on my part, how about the other points I raised, including the citation from his peers in 8 different countries? If he was not notable, would people all over the world be reading his writings and copying parts of his articles to their website? And that is just what I was able to find by googling his name, which isn't the most complete research. It is all relative to his work.. Anyway, I don't think I am going to win you over. I think it is all part of good healthy discussion and if the consensus doesn't find it worthy, so be it, but I have found many more less worthy people listed that haven't done as much.. --Malibailey 05:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wow you guys have been up all night! So have we reached a consensus here? I still strongly feel that Ben Malek should stay, who are we to judge or who is notable or not? His wiki has been modified not to promote his book or endorse him in anyway. Let us just move onto another subject area. Khansajed 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to cquan This is directly from the consensus page guidelines:

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.

Even if an editor's contributions appear to be biased, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors must, in almost all situations, assume good faith and must always remain civil.

Stop being so stubborn. Consider other people's view points. Not sure if you have something against the subject or the original author as I see you have been involved in both of his contributions, but I don't think you are being reasonable. I already posted information about how his notability satisfies WP:BIO and maybe your silence since then means agreement or not?

Although I don't agree with User:Khansajed and some of the edits he had made, I did try to correct the situation by editing the article, I spent all this time ranting back and forth with you. User:TravisTX is an example of how to be a reasonable editor, as when he did see some supporting evidence (that COI wasn't ground for deletion), he assumed good faith.

There are some fields that get more press coverage than others. If he had a small role in a tv show, he would have a lot more notability according to you, because the entertainment industry gets more coverage. You even just reviewed Mona Scott and didn't think there was anything wrong with that. Who is she? Manager of a record company? Is this a directory of record company managers? Is she one of the top record company managers out there? Has she written books about record company management? Do a search for "mona scott" violator or "mona scott" records and you will get around 600-800 hits and most of them are from places that sell her records. Do the same for "Ben Malekzadeh" Lotus Notes and you get more than double that and you will see people quoting him and his work.--Malibailey 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I have to defend my decisions (especially in this case...if you thought she wasn't notable, you could have tagged for CSD just like anyone else). I looked briefly and saw plenty of evidence for notability on Mona Scott...but, why not? I just added a couple refs to the article in support of notability and I'll leave it to others who know more about her to expand the article. Now, back to this article...I think if all those sources you provided weren't blogs or forums, I would say fine and good, but blogs and forums aren't generally accepted as reliable sources per WP:V. I tried a citation search and other than the one you gave above, I can't find examples of him being cited outside a blog (one example is hardly "widely cited"). I think you may be right that I am being a little stubborn on this...I'm not seeing that clear and eyepopping demonstration of notability, but I guess there are lots of little things supporting it...so for now I think I'm sticking to Weak Delete due to limited niche notability without sufficient sources. It's unfortunate that some areas get less coverage, but that's just the state of the world. Still, it wouldn't be much to ask for notability's sake for one article to be written about him in some at least semi-mainstream computing magazine. Like I said, I'm obviously very vocal about this, but I'm hardly the only person available to form the consensus, so my stubborness aside, if the subject is truely notable, one little dissentor like me shouldn't hurt anything. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 16:51, 18 July 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.

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 delete. Wizardman 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Elementary School

Main Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN Elementary School, very little content Rackabello 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Beavercreek City School District, and likewise for other elementary schools in the same district. Shalom ^Hello 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing really to merge here. NN school. Delete + Redirect Corpx 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unnoticeable school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs)
• Merge and redirect to Beavercreek City School District as a perfectly valid search term. Burntsauce 18:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  04:34, 22 July 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.

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 delete. Sr13 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaymes Thorp

Jaymes Thorp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Conflict of interest, and non-notable You-Tuber. De facto advertising because Wikipedia article implies notability.--Absurdist 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Absurdist 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom; unref'd article; blatant conflict of interest by Thorpfilms (talk · contribs). Shalom ^Hello 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete The COI results in an article that is entirely original research. Vanity...tsk..tsk. the_undertow ^talk 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete another NN youtube "celeb" Corpx 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not backed up by references; fails WP:ATT. --Charlene 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy db-bio. That was my first tag on the article, and I still think it is appropriate for all the reasons cited. Being recognized on the street is not sufficient notability even if true, but it is only self-reported by the conflicted subject of the article. Hu 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Speedy delete is for articles that do not even attempt to assert notability. The following is an assertion (however weak) of notability and, if true, provides at least one source from which it might be possible to craft a decent article on this subject:

  "Thorp's fame has grown outside the YouTube community thanks to the recognition he has recieved from various television and magazine media. The first publication to print articles about "Jaymes Thorp" was Romsey Advertiser.[citation needed] On April 19th, 2007, they published an article about Jaymes Thorp and his videos."

  (emphasis mine). Admitedly, this is not phrased as a properly cited source, is only one published incident and not the "multiple non-trivial" that the notability guidelines require, and, given the limited info given at this point in time is not verifiable; but it's a starting point. Let's wait a few days, tell the article creator what's wrong with his article, and give him or her a chance to remedy the situation. 206.246.160.29 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's not. Let's not belabor the obvious. The user has a conflict of interest and has been actively editing the article, for no substantive improvement of content other than cosmetic modifications and self-assertions with no sources, despite guidance and warnings. For example, the creator removed the speedy deletion tag, despite clear instructions in the tag not to do so. Then the creator was warned, but went ahead and a little later removed the tag again. I predict the outcome will be deletion. However, I have no problem letting time take its course for those who insist on form over substance. I respect the mechanisms even when I think the case is so obvious that the mechanisms are a waste of everyone's time involved, including the article writer, and even when the creator doesn't respect process. Hu 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. That reference was added after db-bio tag, which may save it from speedy deletion. The reference, however, does not add up to substantial coverage of the subject.--Absurdist 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - COI, OR, advertising, notability...should I continue? —Travis^talk 19:50, 16 July 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.

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 No consensus. Walton^One 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Bush

Timothy Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural listing - was prod, but seemed to me to warrant an AfD. Original nomination was: "No reliable sources (all citations are from genealogy websites), and subject doesn't seem to be particularly notable in and of himself. It's nice that his great-great-great whatever grew up to be president, but we already have an article about him. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)" Orderinchaos 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete his family may be notable but he is not. Notability doesn't really rub off or pass through DNA. NobutoraTakeda 16:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [20]
• Delete, being the (somewhat distant) ancestor of a notable person doesn't make one notable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per my reasoning behind the PROD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not just the Bush family that makes him notable, its also the Fairbanks family. His mother grew up in the oldest house in the United States. --Briancua 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then that merits him a minor mention on a page devoteed to the Fairbanks, not his own. NobutoraTakeda 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless he's been written about by independent non-trivial third parties, he's not notable either as a Bush or as a Fairbanks ancestor. Growing up in a notable house does not make one notable in the least. --Charlene 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notableUntilMoraleImproves 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Bush family. Only notability is that he's a member of a political family. Blueboy96 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep Keep "the earliest confirmed direct ancestor of the Bush political family." I think for figures of this period reliable genealogical sources may be appropriate DGG (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, none of the genealogical sources cited in the article meet WP:RS. This is particularly problematic, given that the article also includes an offensive allegation regarding his parentage. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed to very weak keep on the grounds of the weak sourcing. But conjectures about historical people's legitimacy are not covered by BLP; it's not his parentage. DGG (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. Callelinea 01:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - cousins, uncles, sisters, brothers, the friends of a friend of notble people does not equate to notability. It is not a process of osmosis for these individuals. If kept Wikipedia evolves into an information source of the mundane.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG plus the attribution requirements are met. Burntsauce 17:34, 20 July 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.

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 Redirect to Reality Check (album). — Scientizzle 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Way I Be Leanin'

Way I Be Leanin' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the independent notability of this single. Otto4711 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the article should just remain tagged as unreferenced until one is provided. No need for it to be deleted. Numerous google hits suggests that the single is notable and refs should not be hard to find.Gungadin 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note that counting google hits is not an acceptable method of determining the notability of a subject. Many of the google hits are for such things as download sites, lyrics databases, sites to view the video and the like and do not constitute reliable sources to establish the song's notability. Otto4711 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Simply not true, and just goes to show that the nominator did not do his reasearch before nominating. Online stores sell the single, there are numerous reviews and magazine interviews featuring the artist. All verifiable sources that could be used. The article needs extending and it should be sourced, but there is no need for it to be deleted.Gungadin 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should keep your opinions about my researching to yourself if you're going to fail at doing your own. Had you taken a moment to read the nomination all the way to the end to get to the link to Wikipedia:Notability, you would find that it states in relevant part that the topic must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. "Significant coverage" means that the sources must be substantially about the subject, not simply mention it. "Reliable sources" means that the source has editorial integrity. Customer reviews on download sites are not reliable sources. Interviews with the musician, unless they are substantially about this specific single, do not establish notability. Otto4711 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Lame attempt to discredit my findings. The references I mention provide significant coverage. Sorry if it hampers your lust for deletion.Gungadin 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• You think I didn't run the same Google search you did before nominating the article? You're the one claiming that reliable sources are thick like grapes on the vine, yet you have not added those references to the article or even posted specific links to them here. So please, enlighten us. Link the sources. Otto4711 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

lets talk about the article. Both you guys are experienced editors. DGG (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am talking about the article. I'm noting that there do not appear to be any reliable sources to support the existence of the article and asking the person who says otherwise to provide those sources. Otto4711 04:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a single by a notable musician; retain the {{unreferenced}} tag. InnocuousPseudonym 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please link to the policy or guideline that states that any single is automatically notable just because it was released by a notable artist. Otto4711 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC#Songs isn't officially policy, but it states "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a single by a notable artist. Gareth E Kegg 12:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherited. Pan Dan 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Reality Check (album) in agreement with Hammer's quote. Multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources are needed to write a neutral article. If such sources emerge, the redirect can be undone. The sources I find (like [21]) are about the album, mentioning the song trivially, and they would support an article about the album, not the song. Pan Dan 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Pan Dan. ZZ 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Hammer's quote and Pan Dan. I'm unconvinced this single passes WP:N. This is constantly an issue with music groups; fans make individual articles for each track, which are not notable, except as part of the album as a whole. - superβεεcat  21:34, 23 July 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.

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 delete. Sr13 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bossman

The Bossman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Autobiography about a radio presenter that lacks evidence of notability. Prod removed without comment by creator/subject. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources or clear notability established, delete per WP:BIO. Ali ^(t)_(c) 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability established Corpx 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The only significant mention he has on the internet seems to be the news that he is appearing on a Punjab Radio program. Just one not so trivial source isn't enough to satisfy WP:BIO. However, I noticed mentions about a Bossman band, maybe it can be redirected to that article instead.--Kylohk 08:47, 20 July 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.

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 delete. Sr13 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One piece pirates dream

One piece pirates dream (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

article about a future game, with no sources, and the creator, who is one of the only editors of it, has removed much of the content, stating them spoilers, apparently at the owners request Jac16888 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability for this project. Propaniac 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability has clearly not been established, and Wikipedia's not the place for a game creator to inform people of an upcoming game. Ali ^(t)_(c) 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The game creator only removed information. Lars T. 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally unverifiable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:00, 16 July 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.

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 merge any sourced content to W. B. Yeats or to the articles about the individual works. Since no content is currently sourced inline, I am redirecting the article to W. B. Yeats. Any mergers can take place from the history once sources are supplied. Sandstein 14:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W. B. Yeats in popular culture

W. B. Yeats in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - another unsourced laundry list/garbage dump of a trivia repository that seeks to capture every time a line from Yeats is quoted anywhere. The listed items tell us nothing about Yeats, his poetry, the items from which the fiction is drawn, how he supposedly served as an "inspiration" (as opposed to, say, the line just sounded cool) for the listed items, how the listed items relate to each other or the world around us. Otto4711 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• comment a larger scale razzia on Category:In popular culture may be necessary. I mean, seriously, Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, Godzilla in popular culture, Pop culture influenced by Sesame Street, these really belong in a Category:Popular culture in popular culture. dab (𒁳) 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any of these items that are properly referenced by verifiable sources as being allusions to his work to the article for the specific work (I don't think there are any properly referenced items, but maybe I missed a few). Then redirect. If no merges are appropriate, then delete. Propaniac 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete I like Yeats a lot but this seems more like trivia. If any of the information was needed it could be listed on their individual pages. NobutoraTakeda 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [22]
• Merge relevant items per Propaniac and delete the bulk. A popular culture article that isn't mainly meaningless passing references in Family Guy, The Simpsons, King of the Hill, etc., etc., is a thing of wonder and sight to behold, but most of these are not references to Yeats; they're references to specific writings of Yeats. Notable items should be moved to the article on the writing in question (and not the "in popular culture" article either, but the article on the work itself) or to the article on Yeats. Simple mentions of Yeats or his works are not generally notable and should be deleted. --Charlene 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• The usual for such articles - merge the good, delete the bad. Shalom ^Hello 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I created the page a weeks back in order to spin it you from the main Yeats article which is currently under FAR. Its presence was a primary for reason calling the review.[23] I don't care if you delete it, but I feel very strongly against any level of reinsertion or any form of merger. So much informed and considered analysis has been writted about Yeats in the last 100 years that it was tough enough not to let the article grow to level above that allowed by the FA criteria. There's better stuff out there to include. Ceoil 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge what's important and sourced, delete the rest, per others above. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

None of it is important and none of it is sourced. It's all incidental and of trivial inportance to the partent article. Ceoil 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Partial Merge per above, otherwise delete the rest since it is as plenty of other IPC articles unsourced and full of trivia.--JForget 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the non-trivia, and delete the rest. --Haemo 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Merge, it was removed from the main article because it is unencylopedic content. It should not be merged back to the main article, as the main article is being reworked to retain featured status. I don't care if it's deleted or kept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to be rude, but every single merge vote has specified to merge only the content that is encyclopedic, and properly referenced, if such content exists. I don't know why multiple people have responded as if anyone is suggesting to just copy and paste the whole mess back into the original article. Propaniac 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thats fair enough Propaniac, not really sure how this process works, so forgive the noob. Ceoil 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • the point remains, Propaniac, that these "in popular culture" articles are created in order to keep the main articles clean. Merging back is a bad idea, this material is only even here because it was unwanted at the main article. Note the entire category Category:Norse mythology in popular culture: this was created because game designers etc. will insist on naming random characters after Norse mythology, and the kids playing these games will insist on adding that to Wikipedia. The "in popular culture" categories serve the important function of discharging that without a lot of fuss. If you want to be strict about that, you will spend your days on AfD getting rid of them all. I don't see the point in that. If people want a repository for that sort of cruft, let them have it in list-like articles out of harm's way. I am not going to vote "keep", but I do think that a deletion campaign against these "in popular culture" articles is an ill-advised waste of time. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If there are substantial and verifiable sources that one notable piece of art is significantly influenced by another notable piece of art, I think that information does belong in one or both of the articles for those pieces of art. None of the items on this particular list seem to be sourced in any way, and so it should be deleted. Information either meets Wikipedia's standards or it doesn't, and if it does not, then moving it somewhere else may improve the article where it originated, but it does nothing to improve Wikipedia as a whole. I don't agree with the position that Wikipedia should have one set of good articles that meet its standards, and another set of bad articles that don't meet its standards. Propaniac 13:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
          • not quite. A factoid that is undue on one article may be alright on another, depending on its relevance relative to the article subject (think Pokemon test). The question here seems to be "do we want 'in popular culture' articles at all?" since this discussion is in no way about Yeats in particular. I see no point in deleting the Yeats article but not the dozens of similar ones. What you want to do is strike up a general discussion about this on WP:VP. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back then prune. Bulldog123 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Also, do not call Sandy a noob. If the information was removed from the main article for FA concerns then all of the content is inappropriate for the article. Merging is not to be performed if it will negatively impact the target article. Loss of FA status would definitely be a negative impact. Jay32183 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back - Some of this is good and relevant information and would be beneficial to the Yeats pages (and hopefully sourced) but should be trimmed down. Statisticalregression 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to W. B. Yeats. Giggy _U^CP 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Response to those saying merge This content was removed from the main article for a very good reason, none of it belongs there. The problem is that the information was forked into a new article rather than simply deleted as it should have been. When dealing with an article that fails WP:NOT#DIR merging it doesn't solve the problem, shortening it doesn't solve the problem, and reformatting it doesn't solve the problem. If you want to write about W. B. Yeats in popular culture then do so with sourced analysis, not just things that refer to W. B. Yeats. Use secondary sources that analyze the fiction, and only reliable sources. None of the current information allows for the type of writing to which I refer, and merging any of it will only burden the main article. Jay32183 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, refactor and rewrite. Yeats was a significant and influential poet, whose impact on the culture and society of 20th century was profound: if Wikipedia is not a broad enough church to understand something as simple as that then in my view the entire project is doomed ultimately to failure. There is, beyond what currently exists, a major article here, and randomly deleting it at the point at which a body of the base of it has been demerged from the main page seems laughable. Wikipedia is NOT paper. Moreover Wikipedia is very much a work in progress. Delete this one and I can nominate you 30, maybe 50k, articles altogether more appropriate for deletion on grounds of notability alone (let alone those that should be excised with ruthlessness on the grounds of quality, style or content, or the sheer and vacuous idiocy of their contents). This is one page which should stay and which should be refactored and comprehensively rewritten. Sjc 04:56, 24 July 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.

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 wasKeep as per WP:SNOW even the nominator has indicated that the article has been improved and no longers believes it should be deleted. Gnangarra 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karrinyup Shopping Centre

Karrinyup Shopping Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page is about an Australian shopping center. It does not seem particularly notable to me, and there are no sources within the article to demonstrate its notability. Actually, there's hardly any article within the article; the bulk of the page is a listing of stores within the shopping center, which seems to be right around the margins of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I took a look to see whether it could be expanded sensibly, but the media mentions I found were fairly trivial in nature. As such, I'm not particularly sanguine about its prospects for expansion, and I think it should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that right now the article currently does not demonstrate the notability of the centre. I will withhold stating whether or not I believe that the article should be kept or deleted until editors with some knowledge of this centre are given a few days to determine if this article can be salvaged. I also agree that the tenant lists are not in keeping with WP:NOT and WP:TENANTS. Skeezix1000 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the significant improvements to the article since the AfD was made, I would now say that we should keep the article. Skeezix1000 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:TENANTS is an essay. Orderinchaos 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? How does that make the centre notable? Skeezix1000 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Essays are not community standards (merely one person's or a few people's opinion), but the use of them in this way makes it look like it has some sort of official status. I've been guilty of it in the past too, for the record. Orderinchaos 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It does not seem particularly notable to me, and there are no sources within the article to demonstrate its notability. Yes, the references tag is there for that reason (added after you attempted to prod the article). I'm on the phone right this moment to a friend with Factiva access, and we have 387 articles in front of us, from which we have so far found at least 20 significant references which pass both the WP:RS and WP:N tests, and provide a reasonable history of the article. This includes local and national papers of record, reports on the attendance of significant international musicians for events, international journals relevant to the subject matter, and even comments made to the media by significant members of the the state's legislative bodies. Am I the only one who can (after we get the time to perform a significant rewrite of the article which has been on a project to do list for a while) see a Snowball keep in our future? Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Quickly get a few of those sources in the article, demonstrating the centre's notability, and then this shouldn't be a problem. More comprehensive article clean-up and addition of sources could wait until later for now. Skeezix1000 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I've got full text copies of all those articles in question sitting in my inbox. In about 24hrs time baring the end of the world getting in my way they will be included. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Great. If they're as good as you say they are, and they make this into an actual article that demonstrates notability, I'd have no problem withdrawing the nom. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I would simply refer to the comments of Orderinchaos below, This should be a WP:SNOW case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. This is already staring to smell like WP:POINT. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh, good grief. I noticed the article while I was sorting stubs that had been misfiled under {{business-stub}}, and I nominated it because it didn't seem notable and when I looked the only articles I found were either about its owners or trivial mentions. Since I had already looked for sources and didn't think there were any good ones, I wasn't impressed by the tag requesting sources, and I decided to bring it to AFD. Check the contribution log, and try assuming some good faith next time, eh? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • As for the WP:SNOW thing, there have only been four commenters on the AFD. Of those, two think it should be kept (and have promised to provide sources, which are still forthcoming), one thinks it should be deleted, and one hasn't decided one way or the other. How is that a consensus? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Note it was nominated at 23:00 WST and 01:00 AEST. Only those of us crazy enough to be up at this hour even noticed it. Orderinchaos 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't think this AfD gives rise to WP:SNOW or WP:POINT. An article that consists almost entirely of tenant lists merits deletion, IMO. There is nothing to the current article. The AfD has had a positive result -- sources showing the notability of the centre will be added shortly. Skeezix1000 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:N - clearly meets notability criteria, being a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city with 1.6 million people (was 3rd biggest overall in Perth, down to 5th or 6th now). This should be a WP:SNOW case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. As TheWinchester says, there are ample sources available to improve the article, although many of them were not available until recently as the uni-subscribed news service most of us use didn't keep publications older than 2001-02 until very recently, and most of the story which makes this shopping centre notable happened last decade. Orderinchaos 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Y'know, when I look at WP:N, I don't actually see any discussion of shopping centers at all. There IS a bit about widespread media coverage, though, so if you've found some sources that I couldn't reach over the pond here, then by all means add them to the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete I don't think a shopping center is notable enough on its own to be mentioned either outside of a page devoteed to the company who owns it and/or on a page of the location if its notable. Maybe if someone famous died there or if there was a huge lawsuit that made it news worthy, but I don't see anything like that. NobutoraTakeda 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [24]
• Delete. Don't know why there's the calls above for a WP:SNOW closure. In any case, the claims of notability above would be infinitely more helpful if sources were actually given and not just implied. If the sources are all older (ie. dead tree sources) that's fine, but they still must be given. Barring the discovery of actual sources to support the claims of notability I can only argue to delete this one. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is appropriately marked as a stub at the present moment. As said previously, AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags. Orderinchaos 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Per OIC again as above, AfD is not a substitute for the placement of appropriate clean-up tags on an article and allowing time and good nature to take it's course. Literally, the project will for the next 24hrs have to kick this article in the pants because a user went WP:IDONTLIKEIT and didn't use clean-up tags. Additionally, how can you possibly pass judgement on something which you admit to not even seeing yet which you know is being worked on? So far, the most sensable comment I have seen here is from Skeezix1000 who defers his judgement pending the appropriate opportunity for clean-up. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's great that it looks like the article can be saved. I suspected that would be the case, which is why I held off stating my opinion. But as stated below, I don't believe that the AfD was inappropriate. Even a stub needs to show the notability of its subject. Clean-up tags are of limited use where there is nothing to clean-up. Right now, there is nothing in the article that suggests that WP:N is met, or even could be met. I'm glad that editors with knowledge of the centre have stepped in, but in the meantime the AfD should not have been unexpected. Skeezix1000 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating two different things here. I didn't nominate it for deletion solely because it hadn't been improved. I nominated it for deletion because it had not been improved and (in my judgement) was not capable of being improved, due to a lack of sources. If there aren't any sources, then it doesn't matter how long a cleanup tag sits on the page, since any party looking to improve it will be frustrated by the same problems that confronted me (unless there's somtething better out there, as you assert). As for your claim of dirty pool on the article's timeline, you created it back in December, and have had numerous opportunities to improve it in the intervening time (assumuing for a moment that it can be made into a good article, a point I'm not willing to concede until I actually see some RSes). It's not like I spotted a preliminary draft on Newpages and ambush-tagged it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Meets WP:N. The question we are asking here is, is the subject notable? The answer is yes, a 54,000 sqm shopping centre in a city as isolated as Perth is clearly so. Only two comparable shopping centres exist in the region in consideration. Never mind that the article is clearly a stub - that is an issue for cleanup, and obviously something that would have been looked at given time. Editors are not only usually busy people but also volunteers and work on a range of article types, and by far the majority of articles on Wikipedia are at present stubs, so demanding they be developed at the sole discretion of another editor at the other side of the world is somewhat disingenuous. WP:DEL, Wikipedia's deletion policy, expressly states: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem." I am concerned that this AfD (which started off as a proposed deletion!) and some of the comments above are an example of rampant Deletionism which has become the norm in recent times. I note that it is presently 12:36am in Perth, so most likely editors who actually are familiar with the subject, or with shopping centres in Australia more broadly, are unlikely to comment for some hours. Zivko85 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me what the time has to do with it. No one is going to close this AfD in less than 24 hours. As for this centre being notable, there is almost nothing in the article except tenant lists. There is nothing in the current article to suggest it can be improved, and the article requires far more than a mere "clean up". So the above quotes from WP:DEL aren't really relevant. It's great that editors who have a knowledge of the centre have come forward to suggest that sources evidencing notability can be found and added, but in the meantime, given the article's current state, I would suggest that we all spend more time finding the necessary sources and re-reading WP:AGF, rather than accusing others of inappropriate conduct. Skeezix1000 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The time is relevant as people are trying to use the *current* state of play to determine consensus, as stated above by at least one contributor. It would be nice to see some WP:AGF shown towards the article's contributors, who more than likely were not familiar with the resources (Orderinchaos has suggested above they became available only very recently) and created the article to fill a redlink, hoping that people with more knowledge of the area would fill in the gaps. Zivko85 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • But of course the current state of the article is relevant. That's what an AfD is. If the article is improved, then the AfD is either withdrawn or the likely consensus is to keep the article. Right now, the article does not meet WP:N or WP:V - making it a possible AfD candidate. WP:V and WP:N are not contingent on whether or not one subscribes to the right database, and the scope of that database. I would have thought that if this centre is as notable as some are suggesting, a simple (and free) Google search would uncover some evidence of notability. As far as I can tell, there is no policy that suggests that WP:N and WP:V can be ignored until such time as "people with more knowledge" come forward to "fill the gaps". Even a stub has to show some evidence of notability. WP:STUB states very clearly that "small articles with little properly sourced information or with no inherent notability may end up being nominated for deletion or be merged into another relevant article" and "The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted." My main message here: we need to spend more time making the article comply with WP:N and WP:V, rather than taking offence at the AfD.Skeezix1000 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How is size notable? My parent's property is larger than that and its not notable. The page lacks any notable events in history and has no special features that makes it more than just a generic shopping center. NobutoraTakeda 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Your parent's home has 54,000 square meters of living space? How many bedrooms and how many bathrooms? Seriously, the figure for a mall should be "Gross leasable area" or GLA , not the real estate including the parking lot, landscaping, etc. See Shopping mall for a discussion of the industry standards for "region" and "superregional malls" based on GLA. It is one quick sort to help with deletion of articles about local malls. Regional or superregional malls are more likely to have reliable verifiable and independent sources with substantial coverage, which would be evidence of notability. Edison 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No notable events in history? That's a big call to make given editors above have found *387* media references to it. Even my cursory checks bring up major deals involving two of Australia's largest companies, Multiplex and AMP Limited, going well into the billions, and some past involvement with key players in WA Inc in the mid-1980s. In light of the Sunday trading arguments in Perth (which went to a state referendum and lost), it's interesting that Karrinyup was the first ever centre to trade on Sundays. Zivko85 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Those events aren't notable for the shopping center but for the companies in question. Notability doesn't rub off through association, or every movie star's childhood friend is notable as with anyone who was in a five block radius of the Star Wars movie studio. NobutoraTakeda 17:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here, no references affirming notability per WP:CORP. Right now this article seems little more than spam. Delete, or merge into article about parent community. --Elonka 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Switching to "Keep" from "Delete", as the article is now adequately sourced. I would also echo what some other editors are saying, in that I am disappointed in the amount of rudeness and personal attacks on this page. There seems to be a steady stream of Australia-related articles that are created in very poor shape (looking like little more than spam). Repeated requests to expand these articles are often just deleted with uncivil edit summaries. Then when the article actually goes to AfD after months of trying other avenues, there's suddenly a rapid burst of attention and even more personal attacks. Sometimes sources appear at that point and sometimes not, but the sour attitude involved is really not helping matters. In my opinion, the clear solution is this: When creating any article, always include at least one third-party source which affirms that subject's notability. If you can't provide a source, don't create the article. And especially don't create the article if it's just about a commercial entity, where the only source is to the entity's own website. If you do this, it looks like spam, and it's going to get tagged for deletion, just like thousands of other articles on Wikipedia that are tagged or deleted every day. --Elonka 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I tend to agree that some of the comment on Australia-related deletions can get away from the topic at hand onto the edge of personal attacks. My only advice there is to take action on the personal attacks as and when they occur. While I have seen some bitter comments on this current AfD I haven't seen anything that looks to me like a personal attack.Garrie 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. No sources. the_undertow ^talk 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP is not a directory, plus no assertion of notability. SamBC 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Article as it exists is just a directory listing. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG for notability. If this is "a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city" as claimed above, then surely the people creating the article can find nontrivial third party news sources that say something notable about it. If they can't or won't, then there's no point to have it here. There's a slight argument to be made for the whole Wiki is not paper thing, but the bottom line is that there has to be some reason to have something, and there just isn't any that I can see for this one. DreamGuy 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep With the claimed 54,000 sq meters (580,000 sq feet) of retail space it satisfies the 37,000 sq meter area to qualify as a "Regional" shopping center. The rejected guideline WP:MALL called for an assumption of notability for "Superregional malls" of over 74,000 sq meters (800,000 sq ft) of gross leasable area. A tally of AFD results shows that Superregional malls have generally been kept in AFDs but regional malls have a mixed record. A regional mall is still more notable than mere local strip malls or power centers, especially in a less populated area. Adding some sources satisfying WP:A would help show it satisfies WP:N Edison 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It looks like it is one of the largest shopping centres in that country and definitely looks notable, although it needs to be expanded significantly and sourced. 170 stores with several major tenants easily passes notability.--JForget 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep' while it's nowhere near as big as Westfield Parramatta, within the Western Australian retail environment it's quite significant and notable. I will definately assume good faith of established contributors like Orderinchaos and Thewinchester and that there are sources available which simply need to be reviewed and incorporated. Garrie 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC) *Delete unless something notable is found and sourced. Square feet are not notable, and proposals to judge shopping centers by that criterion alone have been rejected. If it is notable in Perth, thee will be sources saying so. DGG (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the major shopping centers in Perth are few and far between due to the city planning; as a result these shopping centers are an integral part of Perth, serving as commerce and transportation hubs. Note that there are very few articles in Category:Shopping centres in Perth, Western Australia, so there is no need to cull articles without good reason. Regarding the transportation hub aspect, see Karrinyup bus station, Perth and Booragoon bus station, Perth; the bus routes go all around the city stopping at train interchanges and bus interchanges at these shopping centers. John Vandenberg 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your justification reads like a tourist advertisement to Perth. If those places were important to Perth, then you must add them to the Perth page. They do not deserve their own page, and, as you admitted, are not important on their own outside of Perth. NobutoraTakeda 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily notable shopping centre, as now demonstrated within the article, and which would have been illustrated if the nominator had bothered to do his research beforehand. I'm irritated that he chose instead to waste our time here. Rebecca 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the nominator's job to prove that an article subject is notable. It is up to the editors who contribute to an article to ensure it complies with WP:N and WP:V. No time was wasted here -- the AfD resulted in significant and necessary improvements to the article, improvements which had not happened in the previous 6 months of this article's history. I am becoming quite annoyed at the inappropriate and snarky comments directed towards the nominator. For reasons I have set out several times above, the AfD was an appropriate response to (what was) an incredibly poor article. There was nothing in the article previously to suggest that it was an "easily notable shopping centre". Now the article is so much better -- well done to everyone involved, especially those who diligently searched for information showing the notability of the centre and the sources! Skeezix1000 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as well we were all back from holidays, were on uni breaks and happened to have the time to do all this research! Had we not been, this article would have been deleted and we'd have had to go to DRV to get it recreated, which is insane. The point, I think, is that it shows a LOT more respect for editors to raise this sort of stuff at project talk pages and then only go down this road if such action genuinely leads nowhere. I think deletion becomes a first port of call far too many times, and it only creates ill feeling amongst the community when it hasn't been preceded by any good faith attempt to notify the relevant people who may be able to improve it. Orderinchaos 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. And waiting 30sec after a prod tag is cleared from an article (and appropriate reasoning included in the edit summary) before the nominator moves the issue to AfD is not using good faith by anyone's stretch of the imagination. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you have to take a "trust, but verify" attitude to a certain extent with these things. I wasn't assuming that you were lying about it being notable when I put together the nom, but on the other hand, if we just blindly took people's word for it when they said that things were notable, then nothing would ever get deleted, not even the things that obviously deserve it. I'm glad that you were able to improve this page, but I'm not going to apologize for nominating a bad article for AFD. The best defense against deletion is a good offense: when you start a new article, make sure that you include some actual content and sources, and then it won't be an issue in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to any past contributors, the article was in very poor condition and did not demonstrate the notability of its subject. It was a good candidate for AfD. Yes, I know that some of think that the nominator ought to have notified everyone of his intentions first, but it is not incumbent on him to do so. And, IMO, it wasn't the type of borderline article that ought to have prompted such notification -- the article didn't even come close to meeting notability criteria. Frankly, it was reasonable of him to have assumed that if after 6 months, with not one editor having added any evidence of notability, the centre was not notable. Being rated by Wikiproject Shopping Centres is not a substitute for actual article content. And, no the article would not have had to go through DRV to be recreated. The constant suggestions on this page that the nomination was either in bad faith and/or innapropriate themselves violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. The AfD should have been a surprise to no one. I'm very glad that the article has been improved, but I am quite saddened at the unnecessary negative tone and the misplaced outrage that have been expressed on this page. Skeezix1000 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources establish that it was a notable part of retail planning for Perth and that makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In view of a good understanding of the history of the regional development of Perth, Western Australia - this article along with a few others - are essential and integral in the process where shopping centres in the metropolitan suburbs removed forever the centrality and primacy of the Perth CBD - remove it - and you might as well say you know nothing whatsoever about the context of the location, or the context or history of the locality - let alone the inter-relationship with the politics of development in Perth and the issues mentioned by Zivko85 above. SatuSuro 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What? If that was true, why does that look like OR that belongs on a page created by the shopping center? Also, if it was important to the politics, then a page about the politics of Perth could have a mention of it and that would be all it really deserves on Wikipedia.NobutoraTakeda 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you've made your point NobutoraTakeda, there's no need to keep repeating it. Can I strongly suggest you go back and look at the article and see what's been happening in the last 12hrs before you make any further comments. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep From what is in the article at this time, I would class this as within the bounds of WP:N Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable and well sourced Recurring dreams 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Superb work on the referencing and rewrite to those who worked on this, this is a real obvious keep. Sigh, what a shame we're back to the "mall wars" where peoples' "gut instincts" that shopping centres are inherently non-notable or subject to a non-existent policy are attempting to override Wikipedia's primary notability criterion. --Canley 12:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, changed from delete. Article is now adequately sourced to demonstrate notability. Kudos to the folks who actually take time to improve an article instead of just saying it can be improved. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Adequately sourced? You mean giving mention in a news paper? If thats your rational for "notable" then I can list probably 40 different shopping centers that haven't been mentioned in Wikipedia at all. Want to help me create pages for them? NobutoraTakeda 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, adequately sourced. As best I can tell (based on the titles of the cited articles), the mall is the primary focus of a few of them, and at the very least mentioned in multiple other sources. That satisfies notability criteria as far as I am concerned. And sure, if you've got multiple independent sources for potential articles that haven't been created yet - let's get cracking. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sent. I can pick another random location if you want to go at it again. :) I still don't believe that shopping centers or anything of the sort are inherently notable. NobutoraTakeda 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I, which is why my original recommendation was to delete. Only after the addition of satisfactory sourcing did I change my mind. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Could someone with some common sense please close this. Per TWin. Twenty Years 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be pretty well sourced, but this shouldn't be speedied.--Sefringle^Talk 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the sources--if it's notable, it can be sourced. Better than going by rank in an area or square footage. But since it was challenged let it run the full time. No harm will be done.DGG (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems well sourced enough. Lankiveil 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC).
• Keep As the article currently exists, adequate reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. However, the arrogance and rudeness of the article's primary author in responding to this AfD are rather disturbing, including the accusation that the nominator had created this AfD in violation of WP:POINT, particularly given the fact that the article was completely sourceless and consisted almost exclusively of a list of stores when the AfD was opened. I think a very important general rule was stated here by User:Thewinchester that "Literally, the project will for the next 24hrs have to kick this article in the pants because a user went WP:IDONTLIKEIT and didn't use clean-up tags. Additionally, how can you possibly pass judgement on something which you admit to not even seeing yet which you know is being worked on? So far, the most sensable comment I have seen here is from Skeezix1000 who defers his judgement pending the appropriate opportunity for clean-up." (see here). I hope that we can expect that in any and all future AfDs that all those involved with the creation of articles will be given the same courtesy that should have been received here well before an AfD was created. I don't think that nominating any article for deletion that could have been improved is a WP:POINT violation, as alleged here, but there is a basic and fundamental level of courtesy that should be applied in all cases when there is an opportunity to improve an article without the need to nominate it for deletion. Alansohn 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is important that where articles could be notable if more information was available that some time be given for the original authors/project teams to have the chance to bring it up to the appropriate level. After all opportunities have been exhausted, or in blatant cases, then bring it to AfD. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, strong keep, article has been majorly revamped and no longer resembles the original version. By now, this article is VERY much sufficient in detailing the mall's notability. Kudos to the hard-working Wikipedian(s) who re-wrote it ! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you already try to close this under snowball and that was reverted? Just because there is more detail doesn't mean its more notable detail. Its a loose association of facts, nothing of real note. A history does not make something notable. Stores do not make something notable. The events there have no justification for that actually being notable. A collection of mediocre facts, no matter how large, does not equal one notable fact. NobutoraTakeda 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on this AfD is already against you on this. And stop trying to disparage editor credibility on whatever violations you think they may or may not have performed, this act is getting both old and tired. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable and well sourced --Melburnian 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Just for the record, I'm at worst neutral on the article as it currently stands. I would have said something earlier, but I thought that it was closed. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:04, 18 July 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.

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 delete. Sr13 05:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emmanuel George Cefai

Emmanuel George Cefai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparent self-promotion of a person generally unknown. Drieakko 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Cannot find any evidence of publications about this person; it seems all that exists are publications by him. And not enough of those to justify this article, either. May also want to consider the following additional articles:
  • Idea of Infinity
  • Mentalism by Emmanuel George Cefai
  • Specificity by Emmanuel George Cefai
  • Assertion rather than proof
  • The Gallery of Distinguished Thinkers
• all of which relate to work performed by this writer. JulesH 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete- not notable and has only been the work of 1 author/ IP address WP:CSD#A7 ChrisLamb 15:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources on the man in question. Might be willing to reconsider if someone else were able to do so and thus demonstrate notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom; no apparent references about the guy, just by him. These articles are weird. Propaniac 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all for any page that only has Emmanuel George Cefai's information and is not notable on its own. NobutoraTakeda 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [25]

• Please do not delete before considering.

I object to the proposed deletion of the article on Emmanuel george Cefai because

1. all data and contents in it are easily verifiable and exist in public records (in this case mostly the news paper daily news of Malta)

2. Emmanuel george Cefai clearly merits this reference. : to delete this article would be to deprive other wikipedians from knowing fully about this important series of articles published by Dr. Cefai and the resume’ and critique of which forms basically the contents of the article.

3. The series of articles in question is clearly a very important academic contribution made by a Maltese scholar: and it would be unjust and discriminatory to exclude Dr. Cefai when so many other Maltese people are included.

More over should it be necessary to edit or change or remove any part or parts of this article this would be done reasonably ( communicating with the undersigned) without removing or deleting the article on Emmanuel George Cefai. 16th July 2007 user SunTrax

Suntrax, kindly note that the person in question is a lawyer gone to newspaperman gone to a self-proclaimed philosopher having no other scientific approach in his newspaper articles than his personal likings. As such he is on the same line than any blogger in the Internet. --Drieakko 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can show that ANYONE besides Dr. Cefai or yourself has called Dr. Cefai's articles "very important", it would go a lot farther towards saving these articles from deletion than anything else you could do or say. (To be fair, such a source would have to be reliable by Wikipedia standards.) Propaniac 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all a contemporary writer whose only published works--even asserted-- seem to 9 newspaper columns. DGG (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please read I object to the comments of the proposers for deletion of the article Emmanuel George Cefai, because:

1. there must be a free flow of ideas and the ideas of Dr. Cefai have every right to be represented in Wikipedia and all the other wikipedians have the right to have access to these ideas.

2. Not a single ‘critic’ has succeeded in criticizing in a technical way or presenting technical and intellectual contra arguments to the ideas of Dr. Cefai.

3. The ideas of Dr. Cefai speak for themselves.

To these Critics I say please do not hinder the free flow of ideas and withdraw your objections. (SunTrax, 17/07/07 21:32)

Please note that Wikipedia is not the correct forum for any of the above. Like Propaniac asked, you need to provide reliable secondary sources establishing the notability of the subject. --Drieakko 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all Clearly non notable, author unfortunately mistaken as to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not intended to facilitate the free flow of philosophical ideas (although a wikiPhilosophy might not be a bad idea if it doesn't already exist) it is intended to be an encyclopedia of notable topics. I also think that we might have a COI issue as user SunTrax is also the creator of Emmaunuel Cefai's father's page Joseph Cefai this should also be checked for notability issues as currently it is sourced from Malta public record. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All - articles are essentially being used to publish original works -- Whpq 21:57, 19 July 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.

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 speedy delete (G10) by Stemonitis (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean McCafferty

Sean McCafferty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a biography about a non notable person. NobutoraTakeda 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Completely fails WP:BIO. The person has not been the subject of any published secondary sources that are reliable. A google search also fails to achieve any conclusive results for this subject in question. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably speedyable; growing to a normal height doesn't really qualify as an assertion of notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:03, 16 July 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.

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 Merge and redirect to George A. Romero. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 11:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Dead

Diamond Dead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Diamond Dead is essentially a failed production that does not warrant its own article. The official site and the IMDb entry for the film have been rendered defunct, and there is zero sign that this project will ever see actual production. The article was prodded for deletion, but it was removed on the grounds that it caused "considerable controversy" without ever being produced. A Google search for "diamond dead" romero yields only 642 sites (not excluding junk sites). A more reliable Google news search with the same keywords only yields 49 headlines. The existing headlines fail to note multiple, significant coverages about the project's controversy. The project attempt is worth mentioning at George A. Romero with cited announcements like this, but there is too little coverage to warrant an article on an unmade film like this. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and if it does need a mention, they can add a note at the Romero page. NobutoraTakeda 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [26]
• Keep I don't know about anyone else, but I think a film that managed to get 49 news stories without ever being released is quite notable. JulesH 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you look closely at the results, there are not 49 independent news stories providing significant coverage of the film -- two Washington Post headlines are actually listed redundantly a few times (due to different databases), and other headlines do not provide explicit detail about the project -- for example, "Names in the news" mentions the rumor of Marilyn Manson as Jesus as part of a list and not as the sole focus of an article. I would suggest looking through the headlines more closely to understand that there has not really been much coverage about this production other than "Romero is planning to do this film" (and considering his background, it's not surprising that someone would want to report his upcoming project back in 2004) and "Marilyn Manson might be Jesus in this film". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to George A. Romero. Might not be notable enough for a standalone project, but if he was planning to do it at one point, the failed production is notable enough to be mentioned in his bio. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Failed projects can be notable, and this one seems to qualify, but there's not enough information right now to justify a standalone article. Propaniac 16:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for several reasons. Many scrapped media have their own articles. See The Fantastic Four (film), Socks the Cat Rocks the Hill, Night Skies, etc. Also, we don't know for certain this is scrapped. Romero is working on other projects like Diary of the Dead. I recall the controversy over the film, and tried to post the link to the main site protesting it, but it was blacklisted. It also couldn't easily be merged into the Romero article. There's too much info and the infobox should be retained. Tim Long 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse to keep this article. The examples you mentioned may very well warrant investigation for merging or deletion. In addition, it's illogical to keep an article on the off-chance that a film will be made, especially if there is no evidence suggesting that it will be made. If anything, the removal of the official site and the IMDb entry makes production of this project look bleak. Lastly, this article hardly has any cited information to warrant a fully developed article, so per WP:CFORK, it's better housed elsewhere, such as the director article. Of course, there's no prejudice against recreation if it can cited that actual production will take place on it. There's not even certainty if the Infobox Film template's information is correct -- it's usually taken from IMDb, and with the IMDb entry gone, it's impossible to tell if the existing information hasn't been altered since. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - it's notable as part of the information about Romero, but not as a standalone topic. -- Whpq 21:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of deleting it, just redirect it to George A. Romero. Then we can expand it if the project goes ahead. Tim Long 17:41, 20 July 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.

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 delete. Sr13 05:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R5 Crew

R5 Crew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local summer basketball team (0 non-wiki ghits, no evidence of notability offered in article). Article was speedied in the past, but tag removed by article's creator. Fabrictramp 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article completely fails the notability guideline. The subject in question does not have any significant coverage for this team . A google search also shows up the lack of reliable sources for this team. Thus it is impossible to verify the contents of this article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability Corpx 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs) Corpx 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, this is like a community or street corner team. --Howard the Duck 04:18, 21 July 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.

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 withdrawn. Those sources sound reasonable to me. >Radiant< 08:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taqwacore

Taqwacore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- (View AfD)

This article on a "new genre" of music lacks sources and consists primarily of external links to bands. >Radiant< 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs improvement, but a Google search seems to indicate that this is a real and notable genre. Here's a Guardian article as a start. Propaniac 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A Google News Search uncovers another article, from the Boston Globe, that could probably be used as a reference, but the full text isn't available for free. Propaniac 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per cited references in the article, and the existence of other articles in Category:Taqwacore. As a cultural phenomenon, Islamic punk is here to stay. Shalom ^Hello 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a bona fide, real genre of music. Chubbles 22:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep its a new genre of music with an article about it in a major newspaper. Pats Sox Princess 01:12, 17 July 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.

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 withdrawn. Article has significantly improved (by reverting to an earlier version, apparently) during the AFD, so this is now moot. >Radiant< 08:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allopathic medicine

Allopathic medicine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- (View AfD)

This article has way more "citation needed", "neutrality" and "not encyclopedic" tags than is healthy. It would appear to be primarily original research, and the remainder is already covered in allopathic and/or allopath. >Radiant< 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep allopathic is a disambiguation page, not an alternative article. Highly encyclopedic topic, despite flaws in writing style. This is the history of Western medicine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but how is that a dab page? It has quite a bit of content on the subject. >Radiant< 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to medicine. "Allopathic" is an extremely POV way of saying "non-alternative" and is not used in the scientific community. --Charlene 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of sources, lots of interesting, encyclopedic content. We should embrace this debate, not sweep it under the carpet by redirecting to another term. If some of the content is original research, that should be deleted. However it looks to me as though it simply lacks appropriate sources. JulesH 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the others are extremely short, redundant, and ought to be merged into this one. It needs a cleanup and refocusing on the term, its origins, and how it's something of a pejorative for mainstream medicine. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if cleaned up. There is a better version to revert to [27]. In the interest of improving the article, I restored it--it is basically the first part of the article as tagged. The second part shifts to an attack on it as compared to osteopathy, without giving any evidence for this definition. Altogether POV: "Allopathic organizations, like the AMA, have a history of attempting to discredit other forms of medicine, examples include chiropractic and osteopathic medicine." The content was an attempt to get a less balanced POV fork from Comparison_of_allopathic_and_osteopathic_medicine, itself a rather sketchy article. DGG (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced article. What's the problem here? ~ Infrangible 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article, far in excess of a dictionary definition, and reasonably referenced. There are over 80 Medline hits, so it is currently used in the medical literature. Espresso Addict 05:11, 17 July 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.

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 Redirect to Tiger Woods#Background and family. Walton^One 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cablinasian

Cablinasian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- (View AfD)

Old debate here.

Essentially a neologism, this is a term that golfer Tiger Woods used to describe its heritage. It is not encyclopedic in and of itself. >Radiant< 14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It is a neologism, and one that hasn't even caught on. Wikipedia is not the place for every nifty little non-word that a famous person utters. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tiger Woods#Background and family. "Cablinasian" is the key word in a notable quote from Tiger Woods; it is not a notable term in and of itself. Furthermore, the entire point of Tiger Woods' remark was to illustrate the lunacy of trying to fit each person's heritage into a tidy little box. How ironic then that there is now a Wikipedia article trying to pass this neologism off as a recognized and notable way of classifying ethnicity. Just divide them up into smaller boxes!

The section of the Tiger Woods article that I referenced covers all of the important information about this term. I think the redirect is valuable, because I can very easily envision someone encountering this term out of context in an article about Tiger Woods and trying to search for it on Wikipedia. But it definitely does not need its own article. --Jaysweet 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect - The plan that Jaysweet proposed sounds like a good soloution. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO or a redirect would work Corpx 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an article but wouldn't hurt to include it somewhere on Tiger's page. --UntilMoraleImproves 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment As I mentioned, the term is well-described at Tiger Woods#Background and family, which gives all of the useful information in the article plus puts the quote in context. --Jaysweet 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Jaysweet. At best a semi-notable protologism connected solely with Woods. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Jaysweet. --Fabrictramp 21:38, 18 July 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.

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 delete. Sr13 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raj Guru

Raj Guru (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is the only contribution by Rajgurunyc (talk · contribs), hence a blatant WP:COI. The pastel templates describe other problems, and given the shoddy grammar and lack of references, I'm afraid this article is beyond hope. Shalom ^Hello 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. I also note that the external link goes to a totally different person of the same name.--Fabrictramp 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [28]
• Delete. Blatant promition. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Burntsauce 17:35, 20 July 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.

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 delete. Sr13 05:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Challenge of the Gods

Challenge of the Gods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed with no explanation. Article fails WP:PLOT as being a pure plot summary of a story arc. There do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the independent notability of the story arc either within or outside the fictional universe, although search results may be muddied by the God of War game that uses this as a subtitle. Otto4711 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --ForbiddenWord 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fictional event that has received no coverage from the real world Corpx 18:23, 16 July 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.

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 Delete both ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holla at Me

Holla at Me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Born-N-Raised (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - prod removed without comment. There do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this single. Does not appear to pass the suggested songs guideline at WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge along with Born-N-Raised and Grammy Family to Listennn... The Album, which is the album they were all cut from. JulesH 12:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• There doesn't really seem to be anything to merge for this or Born-N-Raised although I agree neither should exist as separate articles. Grammy Family may be independently notable because it was the subject of a "...Makes a Video" segment on MTV2. Otto4711 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note - added Born-N-Raised to this nomination as the outcome should probably be the same for each stub. Otto4711 13:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If this information was necessary it would be added to the artists' page and not given a new page that has no real information on the subject or critical review. NobutoraTakeda 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [29]
• Delete Unless the song has charted. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:02, 17 July 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.

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 delete. Sr13 04:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric mckinney

Eric mckinney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician/music producer. Does assert a "mention" in a national magazine, but not certain if it was a non-trivial mention or if subject of multiple independent sources required for notability. Article reads like a huge vanity/self-promotion piece, discussing personal life of subject and relatives. Article was previously tagged as a CSD A7 by another editor but creator of article removed tag. Wingsandsword 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable. The bulk of the edits come from two single purpose accounts, user:Texastime99 and user:WLstudioAustin99. The second username suggests a conflict of interest. I have added the afd template to the article. Trugster | Talk 12:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable and possible sock-puppetry. LittleOldMe 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, The IP Address looks to be the same person too. R00m c 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can save it per WP:HEY and find real cites. Bearian 21:41, 17 July 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.

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 delete. But I will speak in defense of Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön) a bit: Alan, please see Columbian exchange. —Kurykh 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1000-1491: Environmental events

1000-1491: Environmental events (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The timeline has no clear focus on a particular topic. It covers natural events, fires in cities, human health etc. This is effectively a history timeline. Other timelines have the same information but with a better focus on a topic. The chosen time period is arbitary. Alan Liefting 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now. The rationale for deletion is unconvincing to me, and speaks more to the need for cleanup and referencing. It would help if someone could cite similar articles that the nom is hinting at (I couldn't find it from a quick search in the category.) Shalom ^Hello 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The afd is covered by Timeline of environmental events, List of historic fires and others at Category:Timelines. Alan Liefting 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Articles like this serve an indexing function. Not sure what sort of references would be needed for this list, at least for those elements that link to specific articles; the brief statements in a list should be referenced there rather than here. The cutoff date is hardly arbitrary: in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and that date is reasonably selected as ushering in a new period in human interaction with the environment. There really isn't a clear reason given as to why this should be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you see Columbus as an "ushering in a new period in human interaction with the environment"? If this is the case should the timeline extend after this date. I could perhaps also argue that the arrival of the first humans on the American continent is a more important date. The early humans caused numerous extinctions - the same scenario as with other areas. Alan Liefting 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see no reason to keep lists of events that are only notable through bias or aren't really necessary. If something big did happen, the event would be given its own page, so the non-notable and unnecessary events are there based on the notability of others. Information is redundant and not neceesary for an encyclopedia. NobutoraTakeda 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [30]
• Delete. This list has no clear inclusion criteria - there is no attempt to define or explain what an "environmental event" is. It appears to be largely an attempt to make a list of natural disasters, which would be better handled by List of disasters and its children, but then again this also attempts to catalogue various and largely unrelated events such as construction projects and technological advancements. As per the nominator, the list has no clear focus whatsoever. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per "list of loosely associated items" I'd have no problem with it if it was List of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes etc Corpx 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I am unconvinced that the chosen start and end dates are not arbitrary, and that the inclusion criteria for this list are clear or can be made clear. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — mholland (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete environmental events seems to be a cross-section of natural disasters, food shortages (caused by ?), fires (caused by ?), and anything else that killed, starved, or made lots of people unhappy. The selection will always be POV and subjective unless we limit to List of volcanic eruptions, List of famines, List of tsunamis, List of earthquakes, etc. (at least two of which we aparently already have: famines & earthquakes). Carlossuarez46 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's historical. I would like to see more like this, although the list would grow exponentially as you reach present day. ~ Infrangible 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See Timeline of environmental events. It covers the complete history of the Earth rather than a short, arbitrary period. Alan Liefting 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The idea is a good one, but currently this list is defined only with very vague criteria. What precisely is an "environmental event"? It's not explained, and thus we have everything from a famine to the building of a canal. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Infrangible or merge with Timeline of environmental events per Alan Liefting. Bearian 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please see the discussion at Talk:1000-1491: Environmental events. -- Wavelength 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs clarification and definite improvements, but I think it has potential. --Android Mouse 18:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A clarification would be to rename it as "1000-1491: Natural events" and delete the very small number of events that relate to human activity. Alan Liefting 22:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment it has no intro, the time period is arbitrary and the events are multiple. Narrow it down and put it in context, otherwise Delete it. Darrenhusted 22:59, 22 July 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.

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 keep and cleanup. The notabiliy - or rather, notoriety - of Mr. Weberman is beyond dispute. The nominator's claim of WP:COI by Ajweberman (talk · contribs) and 66.108.22.125 (talk · contribs) appears to be correct. The article history provides an excellent example of what happens when experts such as Gilliam (talk · contribs) and Herostratus (talk · contribs) must play on the same field as COI-niks, but that's no reason to delete the whole article. Early non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. J. Weberman

A._J._Weberman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

I think this article was written almost entirely by Weberman himself, and treats his wild assertions almost entirely favorably, while couching it in the language of wikipedian neutrality. Weberman is an insignificant figure-- I fail to see how someone who the majority of web hits for are all related either (a) to his own webpages or (b) having gone through Bob Dylan's trash deserves his own wikipedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mysteriousfumanchu (talk • contribs).

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Weberman is a complete nutcase, no doubt about that, but anyone with an interest in Bob Dylan has heard of the guy. The fact that the article is imbalanced, in not pointing out the guy's a loonie, doesn't mean it should be deleted but improved. Nick mallory 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep What Nick said. Spazure 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup, per Nick mallory.--JayJasper 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The article is well referenced with links to independent sources. The subject matter is also quite notable in nature. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Easily a notable guy, article needs cleanup. I'll leave that to the Dylan fans though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:41, 16 July 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.

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 no consensus. both sides does have valid and invalid reasons for both keeping the article and deleting it, the deleting agruements were weaker in my opinion, many delete as nonsense votes, and just because a certain user created the article. Those aren't reasons to delete. Another agruement I noticed is that it's PoV and was created only because of the Israeli article. ChrisO does have agruement with the move, but didn't have much support for it. In my opinion, for the sakes of WP:NPOV is to place all those apartheid articles in AFD and let the community decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of French apartheid

Allegations_of_French_apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

this article is a joke and a collection of clichés and lies. it has nothing to do with the apartheid definition and focus on algerian muslims living in france. this article is not serious and does not exist in the other wikipedia versions, i suggest its deletion. by the way there is nothing about northern ireland its real apartheid ha. Paris By Night 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

allegation of lies:

France maintained colonial rule in the territory which has been described as "quasi-apartheid" :this is stupid and totally false. there was no such things as US buses for black and white in algeria, :besides algeria was truly part of france as made of département like today corsica. for example muslim :children went in public schools with european french kids, i've seen worst apartheids. this view is a :simplification by american editors, reads like all mslim in france are from algeria, but this totally :false many comes from morroco and tunisia and black africa as well, all of which are former french :colony or protectorates, there is not a single word about this. this article is totaly oriented and a :mystification this can be seen in "Criticism"'s POV authors selection. this article doesn't exist in :other language, don't ask why. Paris By Night 09:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

plus there is nothing like "race" in france, france is not the united states! there is nothing like Racial segregation in the United States and never was, not even in algerian departements. Paris By Night 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep article properly sourced and notable.--Cerejota 12:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this and the whole series. They are all irredeemable POV collections of slurs. Mowsbury 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You might find that the whole series would be deleted if they whole series was nominated in a group nomination. Individual AFD's have failed in all but one case up until now. My reason for my AFD vote here is that it the article seems to completely follow all of Wikipedia policies and requirements for articles, as can be seen both by its content and the precedent for dealing with its sister articles.--Urthogie 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie is absolutely right, Mowsbury. This is a WP:POINT and WP:ALLORNOTHING hostage-type situation. The editors creating these articles don't believe in them, and are willing to "trade" their deletion for the deletion of an article they're ideologically opposed to.--G-Dett 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction, I do believe in these articles so long as one of them exists. If only Brazil's apartheid allegation article existed, then that would be singling out Brazil. It's an NPOV issue, not a POINT issue. And WP:ALLORNOTHING applies to justification for AFD votes, not suggested new AFD's or changes in notability policies.--Urthogie 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Well sourced article drawing from numerous notable publications. If there's a POV problem, fix it. JulesH 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - WP:POINT by the article creator who has been a frequent, noted critic of Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Variations of this tactic have been used too many times to count. Tarc 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. Seems like a bad faith nomination. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there is a precedent for keeping "allegations of apartheid" articles. If someone created an AFD for all of these articles, that would have a strong chance of succeeding. It is irrational, however, to apply differing standards from one article to the next. Also, to Paris by Night, I believe race does exist in the French mind-- at least according to Frantz Fanon!--Urthogie 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. There are a couple of sources that actually appear to pursue the comparison. Most on the other hand merely use the word "apartheid" once for what appears to be rhetorical effect. These passages are then presented in such a way as to make the rhetorical effect look like an extended comparison. All fifteen of the sources are listed twice, first as "Notes" and then as "References," in order to give the illusion of depth in sourcing. The fact that this article has been cobbled together by two editors who know nothing about the subject matter and are merely compiling quotes they've found through Google-searches, and that the WP:POINT of all this is to create a bargaining chip with which to bring about the deletion of an article they're ideologically opposed to, doesn't bode well for its future quality. I vote only "weak delete," however, because I don't know that much more about the subject than the authors do, so it's possible that there's a quality article to be written on this by an editor with genuine interest in and knowledge of the subject. If that's the case – that is, if there are sufficient RS-foundations for this and such an editor comes forward, I wish him or her the best of luck in coaxing the article out of the sweaty palms of the pranksters now clutching it. For the purposes of this AfD, the comments and recommendations of editors with experience editing France-related (or civil-rights-related) articles should be given much more weight than those of other editors.--G-Dett 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't it ironic to advocate that some people's votes should count more than others when discussing apartheid? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is indeed ironic. It seems that self-righteousness always brings the worse in people, regardless of the truth of their arguments. --Cerejota 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Pretty weak as ironies go, given that Wikipedia is not a democracy, given that AfD's are explicitly not to be regarded as votes (because "justification and evidence for a response carry far more weight than the response itself"), and given that I'm not placing myself in the category of those whose recommendations should be given greater weight. But share your irony with the right people, and we might see an article called Allegations that arguments used in AfD discussions are like apartheid.--G-Dett 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Touché ;). I follow French politics very closely and my daily news fix comes largely from French-language papers. I have never, not a single time, encountered the word "apartheid" in the context of French racial problems. And let's remember they're not only limited to France, they've spilled over to Belgium, too. Cars have been set on fire here in Brussels as they were in France but I think the press here just knows what apartheid is, and what isn't. We're talking racial and religious tensions here, not official discrimination of any kind.--Targeman 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Pretty strong, actually; you attempt to create two classes of "voters", with an ostensibly neutral classification, but in actuality affecting mostly editors who have argued that this article should be kept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh, drop it already. You're late on the joke and you're not making any sense. At the time I wrote that the comments and recommendations of France-focused editors should be given greater weight, exactly two France-focused editors had "voted": one for delete (the nominator), one for "speedy keep" (JulesH).--G-Dett 23:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Apartheid in the strict sense means systematised segregation condoned by the authorities. France does not have apartheid. Either that, or every single western country has apartheid. All the quotes cited in the article are in the pejorative sense, "blatant, gross, discrimination or racism" (of which any country in the world can be accused of).--Victor falk 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because these are allegations. Allegations are just allegations and unless proven in court or through media. This will be appropriate as a subsection of French apartheid, but not on its own Corpx 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

French apartheid does not exist as an article, it is a redirect to this page. It seems to be that you are actually suggesting a rename to french apartheid, not a delete.--Urthogie 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, not a rename. A french apartheid article would have to be created from scratch, which analyzes the orgins/history/ending etc of it, with the allegations being a part of it. Corpx 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations are just allegations unless proven, yes. But "allegations" that by their very nature can never be proven or disproven – because they're subjective, evaluative, interpretive, comparative, vituperative, etc., rather than falsifiable statements of fact – are not, of course, "allegations" at all. But if you're asking for basic literacy from the scribes behind this hoax, you'd be asking too much.--G-Dett 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. Allegations can definitely be proven right/wrong. First hand accounts, court-proceedings etc all prove allegations to be true or false. It'd be better off in a form similiar to [[31]] instead of purely being a list of allegations Corpx 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Er, you agree then. "Allegations can definitely be proven right/wrong." Yes, exactly, that's my point. Things that can never be proven right or wrong are not called "allegations" – they're called comparisons, interpretations, analogies, critiques, whatever it is that they are. Thomas Jefferson allegedly fathered several children by his slaves, very well, no problem. But not: Thomas Jefferson was allegedly a hypocrite.--G-Dett 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Heh, I disagree again. How exactly would one go about proving who Jefferson went around fathering babies with? I'm saying that these allegation against ____ have no merit to stand on their own, but instead should be part of the article in question. Corpx 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DNA, maybe? The point is, allegations are statements of fact. They are things that either did happen or did not happen; proof/disproof are at least conceivable even if not practical. Subjective judgments, however – statements to the effect that X resembles Y, or is reminiscent of it, or whatever – are not "allegations." Oh, hell, it doesn't matter – when language slides, let it slide, you can't stop glaciers. --G-Dett 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Some allegations are noteworthy and encyclopedic. See Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example. If there weren't reliable sources, then I'd say they were unencyclopedic allegations, but these seem noteworthy. We can't pretend the allegations don't exist. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, quite obviously. A neologism. Let us not fool ourselves: everyone who comes here knows that this article's creation and continued existence is disruptive; it was created in response to the Israeli Apartheid article (which, I maintain, should be about the use of the term and not the mess of charges and counter-charges it is now) in order to indicate that allegations of apartheid are widespread. This is WP:POINT; however widespread segregation, even legal segregation is, the only term that is encyclopaedic is Israeli Apartheid. The others are all, quite simply, WP:POINT. The article is terribly written, largely OR, reading far too much into one or two op-eds. Delete with extreme prejudice. Hornplease 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is in line with other "Allegations of (country) apartheid" articles. Beit Or 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That it's "in line with" some other junk created by the same authors is self-evident, but how is this an argument for its retention?--G-Dett 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Those articles have, like the Israeli apartheid article, survived AFD's.--Urthogie 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations of Andorran Apartheid" would also be 'in line with' other articles. Clearly not a good enough reason to keep this junk.Hornplease 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources dealing with "andorran apartheid."--Urthogie 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And none here either. Use of the word 'apartheid' in combination with 'France' does not make a notable phrase, or even a notable allegation. Which you know. Hornplease 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What does make a notable phrase, then?--Urthogie 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There could be several standards. This isn't one by any reasonable standard.Hornplease 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question for those who maintain that that Israel article is somehow unique. What is your basis for that? The Chinese apartheid article features quotes from the Dalai Lama and our lord and savior Jimmy Wales. Aside from length and controversiality, what exactly seperates allegations against Israel as unique, aside from the disproprotionate amount of press coverage the Middle East receives, thus resulting in more possible reliable sources?--Urthogie 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The disproportionate amount of coverage and analysis the Middle East receives. Oh, you answered it in your question. Hornplease 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so, it's a completely subjective decision about a quantitative value, then? 20 articles is enough coverage, 10 is not..? Or is it 15? Please define an actual qualitative, rather than quantitative reason for keeping the Israel one and not the others. Thanks, --Urthogie 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because you miss the point. Even if the conditions in Israel are not unique, the disproportionate coverage and analysis raises otherwise non-notable allegations to encyclopaedic notability. And as for 'qualititative, not quantitative" - that's not how we work. Horrible, apartheid-like conditions may prevail in Andorra, but until everyone and Jimmy Carter gets involved, WP doesn't care. Hornplease 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The Israeli apartheid article existed for years before Jimmy Carter's comments. Would you have supported its existence before his comments?
2. The article on alleged Chinese apartheid includes stuff from Jimbo Wales, from the Dalai Lama. Would you therefore support the existence of that article?--Urthogie 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters about my opinions, but the talkpage of that article shows I was highly ambivalent about it, and I did not vote to keep on any of the AfDs prior to the mainstreaming of the phrase.

Chinese Apartheid is a phrase marginally notable purely because the Dalai Lama used it a few times in the early 1990s. I would not vote to keep or delete that article. Jimbo is irrelevant.

I trust that satisfies you about my motives. I am not going to discuss them again.Hornplease 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Stuff" is a pretty good word for the China article's haphazard sourcing, though I still prefer "junk." Take a look at the Dalai Lama source: a BBC article in which the word "apartheid" appears once, in a pull-quote. This is what I mean by 'passing reference,' and it does absolutely nothing to support the legitimacy or notability of a subject. Move on to the Heritage Foundation block-quote, which a Wikipedian has misrepresented (deliberately?) as "discuss[ing] some of the reasons for the use of this term." No it doesn't. It's just juicy material from an article that in a subsequent passage, and in a different context, makes passing reference to apartheid: "Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet." That's the only mention of apartheid in the entire article. What does the material Wikipedia quotes at length have to do with it? Nothing. It's just more "stuff." Move on to the Desmond Tutu stuff. Tutu tells the Tibetans God is on their side, and our boys type "Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has also drawn comparisons between the fight to end South African apartheid and the Tibetan struggle for independence from the People's Republic of China." If Tutu speaks to a room full of terminally ill patients and tells them not to lose heart, our boys will be able to create Allegations that Cancer is Apartheid. Now to the Jimbo Wales reference. Here the article suddenly becomes cryptic: the only direct quote is something odd from Wales about how Google has "damaged the brand image of 'Don't be evil,'" by giving in to Chinese authorities." Huh? Whuh? Then you click on the link and find that the original article didn't even quote Wales on apartheid, it just mentioned in passing that Wales himself had made a passing mention of apartheid. Jimbo objects to Chinese censorship in strong terms; the AP quotes his strong words, then mentions in free indirect that he also invoked South Africa; and our boys type up eagerly what AP could barely be bothered to mention, and throw in a driver's-licence/college-yearbook style photo of Jimbo to liven things up. There's no context, no explanation, we don't even understand what the comparison was, just the smiling snapshot, serene in its irrelevance. Stuff. Junk. Stuffed with junk.--G-Dett 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I fail to see how WP:POINT is involved, as there is no disruption here. Everyone seems to be assuming bad faith about the contributor who has written this article, and I see no reason to think that. The article discusses allegations that are, in fact, notable, having been reported in multiple reliable sources, and having apparently had significant impacts on French culture and politics. I see no reason to delete here. JulesH 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Head, meet sand. WP:Ostrich in reverse here. The fact of self-segregation may have had a significant impact on French society. Some commentators see such self-segregation as resulting in apartheid-like conditions. Sourcing the first and the second to reliable sources and then putting them together is the very nature of OR.Hornplease 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No two things are being synthesized together. The entire page is about one thing-- the rhetoric of alleging apartheid against France.--Urthogie 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the page is about that, or so the title attests. My analysis of the sources, however, is one I recommend to all others who wish to comment.Hornplease 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment perhaps we should take "apartheid" and put it on the list of words that are not to be used for article titles; like "cult" (except when dealing with ancient observances called cults in their own time) and "tyrant" (except for certain ancient Greek rulers so-called as a neutral title in their own time). Allegations of Fooian apartheid is little differen that allegations that so-and-so is a tyrant, or allegations that Fooism is a cult, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support that proposal-- with the exception of the Crime of apartheid and History of South Africa in the apartheid era articles. Allegations of apartheid articles should be renamed to a far more neutral name.--Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with 2005 civil unrest in France. The allegations of "apartheid" are largely limited to this period and its aftermath. Please let's not devalue the word "apartheid" which means an official policy of segregation --> South Africa before Mandela, the US before Luther King, Nazi Germany. There is not and never has been any such policy in France. --Targeman 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Either Keep all Allegations of X apartheid or Delete them all. Per NPOV, no preferential treatment. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not require equal treatment of articles of unequal notability. Hornplease 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. And the loudest scream is not an indication of being right. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And being right has got nothing to do with being notable. I trust you will keep to reasonable arguments for deletion in future.Hornplease 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Either Keep all Allegations of X apartheid or Delete them all." Thanks, Humus, for aptly summing up the hostage situation and making clear your demands.--G-Dett 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfft. To make my "demands" clear, Keep. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Article is well written, encyclopedic, and uses high quality sources, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deleting. Nor are the various ad hominem comments that have peppered this AfD. The article also uses sources that all refer directly to French apartheid, and multiple sources refer to the same issues, so there are not WP:NOR issues. Finally, I did an experiment last night and hit the "Random article" button twenty times; the majority of articles didn't even have any references, and the best article only had four. This one has 15, and the article itself was longer than all but 3 articles. I recommend this test to other editors, to see how this article stacks up against the Wikipedia norm. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That the article is well-written is debatable and, in any case, irrelevant. That it uses high-quality sources is possible, but that those sources have been used in synthesizing original research is likely, which is something I notice you have not addressed. Such misuse of sources is a concern as endemic to this project as unsourced assertions. Hornplease 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have edited your post in an attempt deal with my concerns, which should perhaps have been done in response, I hope you will permit me to reply: the sources to not refer 'directly' to French apartheid. The quotes say things like "France is disintegrating before our eyes into socioeconomic communities, into territorial and social apartheid. The rich live in their own ghettos.". "Algerians encountered France's 'civilising mission' only through the plundering of lands and colonial apartheid society.." etc, etc. In each case, apartheid is used as a convenient signifier for a stable segregation. None of the sources make any effort to categorically compare France to apartheid-era SA; none of the sources make an effort to analyse a discourse which would use that term; practically none of the sources even use the term "French apartheid". (Perhaps because most of the people writing, polemicists though they are, seem to be better researchers than us.) Put simply, this could be held up as a textbook example of bad original research. Hornplease 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Dezidor 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As I have said elsewhere, I generally do not like "Allegations of" articles (or articles that amount ot that even when not so-called). However, what I'd like would be cherry-picking which allegations are "true" and deleting the rest. If someone wanted to put all of these articles up for an AfD, I'd be willing to vote yes. IronDuke 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep together with all other "Allegations of XXXX apartheid", or better, delete them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING (and same goes for the numerous "per jossi" on this page). Please, let's be constructive. What are you trying there ? Benjamin.pineau 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If this article is to be kept, please get rid of the word "apartheid"! This is an intolerable abuse of language. As I said before, let's not water down the meaning of apartheid. What next, Allegations of French genocide of Muslims? "Apartheid" is waaaaay over the top. And it's an insult to the memory of the victims of true apartheid. --Targeman 00:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the use of the term "apartheid" an "intolerable abuse of language" only in the case of this particular article, or is it an "intolerable abuse" in all six "Allegations of apartheid" articles? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Apartheid" is an incorrect term for all of the mentioned countries except Saudi Arabia, which has a clear, unambiguous and systematically enforced official policy of segregation - of sexes in this case. For other countries, "widespread discrimination" or "officially endorsed discrimination" or similar would be a more appropriate term. --Targeman 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, many editors here insist that it is only applicable in the case of Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is applicable not so much to Israel as to the Occupied Territories - which only Israel recognizes as its own territory. In Israel itself (i.e., the part internationally recognized as Israel), racism and mistrust permeate all levels of society but there's nothing like an official policy of segregation.--Targeman 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per jossi. --tickle me 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable in and of itself. Although the Algeria aspects should be keep and integrated into the article on Frances involvement in Algeria. French apartheid really should be about apartheid in France proper. Right now the article is too much of an arbitrary collection without a focus, something that Wikipedia is NOT. --CGM1980 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Based on User:Targeman's comment, I'm wondering if people would be more generally happy if the article were renamed to Racism in France and its scope expanded to cover this subject more fully? JulesH 07:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: not really. Racism is just an expression of universal human stupidity. If we had an article about everything stupid humans have ever done, Wikipedia would need a server the size of the solar system. What I'm objecting to is the awful word apartheid in this context. Nobody talks about Stalinist gulags in Putin's Russia or the resurgence of Nazism in Germany because there are a few Hitler nuts left around. I personally propose to merge this article into 2005 civil unrest in France. Racism is widespread in France as it is everywhere but it has never, ever been a matter of public policy. What France is facing are the usual effects of a massive and largely monoethnic immigration of blue-collar workers into a sclerotic economy that just can't cope. Sure this breeds disgruntlement but apartheid, no way. --Targeman 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: JulesH's suggestion is a good one, given that most of the sources for this article are articles about racism, and few if any of them are about "allegations of French apartheid". Targeman's demurral is also well-reasoned, but this is a moot discussion either way. The authors of this article will never permit the title to be changed, no matter what the substantive support for such a move, because their very WP:POINT in cobbling this page together was to use it as a bargaining chip to secure the deletion of a different article. For the hoax to work, both the original article and the hostage/bargaining chip article need to have parallel titles. Have a look at the demands made explicitly by HumusSapiens and Jossi (and insinuated by Jayjg) above, and by Amoruso below, and the mechanics of the hoax will become clearer.--G-Dett 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  I don't suppose it would help to request that you focus on the article, and the relevant policies, rather than your impressions regarding other editors? And is there any point in requesting that you tone down your rhetoric while you're at it? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep no valid problems with article unless all apartheid allegations against democracies are removed for policy reason/encyclopedic - see jossi. Amoruso 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why all or nothing? The point here is if there is a noticeable debate of allegations of apartheid against the French government. Debates against other governments may or may not be substantiated, but there are not in this article. It is just a collection of quotes from articles using "apartheid" as hyperbole for racism and discrimination in France.--Victor falk 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Quadell Taprobanus 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is well sourced to notable scholars, all using the apartheid analogy. Isarig 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• No it is not. Please read them. I don't call an article that first has a section "Notes" which contains footnotes and then a section "References" that contains almost but not all the same sources in the former "well-sourced". The sources are not to notable scholars, or even unnotable ones, but mostly to massmedia news items. And hardly any of them uses the word "apartheid" more than once, and generally in a wholly incidental manner.--Victor falk 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? The very first reference cites David Scott Bell – a professor of French Government and Politics at Leeds university, and the author of several authoritative books on contemporary French politics. The second cites a peer reviewed book published by one of the leading publishers of academic research which discussed French policy in Algeria. He third is yet again, a book published by the University of California Press, by a noted UC professor of History considered by some to be one of America's best historians of post--World War II French politics. How are these non-notable academics or "massmedia news items"? Isarig 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1st ref: the word "apartheid" appears once (p.36) in a 286-page book on Presidential power in Fifth Republic France. 2nd ref: the word "apartheid" appears once on page 3 of a 233-page book called France and the Algerian Conflict: Issues in Democracy and Political Stability, 1988-1995. 3rd ref: "apartheid" appears once, on p.262 of the 335-page France, the United States, and the Algerian War. The problem with this article is not that it lacks sufficient scholarly sources; the problem is that none of these sources talk about "allegations of French apartheid." They just use the word "apartheid," once apiece. They do not even pursue the comparison; they just use the word and move on. When Wikipedians gather up stray instances of a word's use from primary sources, and then describe the pattern of use they see and create a narrative around it, the result is original research.--G-Dett 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the (obviously false and ridiculous) claim that "The sources are not to notable scholars, or even unnotable ones, but mostly to massmedia news items". When such patently false objections are raised, it seems likely that the people making them have not bothered to look at the article. If you'd like to raise a different objection, such as that in your view the scholarly sources do not make the allegation of Apartheid strongly enough, that's quite a different matter, and probably not something for which we can find an objective metric. Isarig

Again, the problem is that next to none of these sources talk about "allegations of French apartheid." To have a Wikipedia article on a subject, you need reliable sources who talk about it. That a pattern in various writers' use of the word "apartheid" is detected by two Wikipedians and the mayor of Montpellier does not make it a notable topic.--G-Dett 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Isarig Jayjg Zeq Humus SlimVirgin Shamir1 and co. DeleteThe subject is non-notable, but the article should be kept as an instructive example of how far the Zionists will go in their attempts to deflect criticism from their regime. If they spend their time and energies attacking the French, they might give the rest of us a break. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing my vote:I have reviewed the keep votes, and they all boil down to WP:ALLORNOTHING which is not a valid argument in deletion debates. These editors have stated that they do not care if this article is deleted, as long as Alegations of Israeli Apartheid also gets deleted. But other articles are irrelevant to this debate.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 07:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are advocating keeping an article you believe is non-notable, as a way to make a point, while conducting a personal attack on other editors. Considering how little regard you have for WP policies, you should really rethink your involvement in the project. Isarig 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My good friend Isarig! Even when I agree with you, you are not happy.... I did not create this artcile. But if you and your friends decide to go to war against France, Cuba, Brasil, and the rest of the world, who am I to stand in your way. Good luck... 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Whatever one thinks of the Israel apartheid debate, the fact is that a prominent, fractious and complex discussion and evolved. You have big names, you have wide opposition, and you have a standard list of points, facts, and arguments that recurringly come up. The end result is a topic that can't effectively be discussed in any other articles that have been suggested. With this article, I don't see any of that; solely a principle that all countries should be treated the same, never mind whether the issues or discussions actually differ. If we have a discussion of apartheid in Algeria, then it seems that would much better fit in French rule in Algeria. If we have a discusion of the Social situation in the French suburbs, then a neutral article also already exists. Unless those are somehow inadequate, then I don't see why this article is needed or appropriate. Mackan79 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Mackan is right that the sheer volume of RS-foundations for Allegations of Israeli apartheid dwarfs that of this article, but it's worth noting that the difference is not only one of scale but of kind. In the Israeli case, there is a large, long-standing and multifaceted debate and discussion of the allegations themselves. That debate and discussion is the subject and raison d'être of the article. The only rationale for having an article on allegations or analogies (as opposed to articles on the policies in question – the Israeli occupation, French colonial history or current socioeconomic inequalities, etc.) is that the allegation/analogy is itself a notable subject. This is simply not the case of this article. It is wholly unlike the Israel article in this respect. Not one of the fifteen sources for Allegations of French apartheid is about the analogy; each is about some other topic (Algeria, post-colonial inequalities in France, the debate about the veil, gender relations within Muslim immigrants), and in the course of talking about that other topic the word "apartheid" is used metaphorically. Usually only once. That's right: even in the several academic studies cited for this article, which are hundreds of pages long, the word apartheid appears only once. The only statements about the analogy/allegation in the entire article that aren't pure original research by Jay or Urthogie are 1) a diverseeducation.com reference to the opinions of a Professor Hutchinson; and 2) the comment from the mayor of Montpellier, which is misattributed to a Guardian article in which it never appeared. In short, unlike the Israel article, this article presents a topic that almost none of its supposed sources have even addressed. It's an article about a pattern of linguistic usage, and one noticed not by RS's but rather by Jay and Urthogie. This isn't a Wikipedia article; this is a piece of investigative journalism, carried out by editors using Google and Googlebooks to track down every instance in which someone used the word "apartheid" in connection with anything French. The results of this original research cum investigative journalism have then been cobbled together and made to superficially resemble the Israel article, for the WP:POINT-purposes I've detailed above.--G-Dett 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• keep  ??? Ya got 4 references where apartheid appears as a key word in the title, don't go interpreting for us that it's "only a metaphor" and therefore "unlike the Israel article", etc. "a pattern of linguistic usage" indeed. that phrase alone oughta enter the wikipedia halls of verbal obfuscation. Gzuckier 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, the statement by the Mayor did appear in a Guardian article: France wakes up to plight of its forgotten cities. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• The posters glued above the entrance to the flats call on locals to join the fight against a state policy of "urban apartheid". [...] "Terms like urban apartheid are overdramatic," [Montpellier's socialist mayor, Hélène Mandroux,] said. "We recognise the problem and we are trying to deal with it, but this is not Johannesburg in the 1980s. Those are the two only and only two instances in the article where "apartheid" is mentioned. And this is supposed to be a source establishing widespread and scholarly allegations of systematic racial segregation by the French authorities?--Victor falk 18:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please review straw man. I'm curious, how many comments do you and G-Dett plan to make on this AfD; will you be responding to every single vote and comment in favor of keeping the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jay, the problem is that you're foisting highly controversial material on diverse areas of Wikipedia, while refusing to consider whether it could be better covered under another title. Can you explain why this material can't fit under Social situation in the French suburbs, French rule in Algeria, and/or 2005 civil unrest in France? I so far haven't seen anyone address these points. As one benefit, while nobody appears to have actually responded to the allegations in this article, the existing examples are able to attempt a balanced look at the situation. Mackan79 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to propose a split, the way to go is through the talk page, not an AFD.--Urthogie 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mackan79, as I've explained to you before, I'm not "foisting" anything on anyone - there have been 10 of these articles, I created only one, and the material is arguably even more controversial in other articles than this one. As for the non ad hominem part of your statement, it would seem to apply equally well to every single article in the series, not just this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• My reason for deletion is that it's a POV fork, which isn't an argument against Jay, but against the article. As to proper names, I don't see how that can possibly be determined across 10 articles. Social situation in the French suburbs strikes me as a surprisingly good fit, partially because I don't see that the allegations themselves have gained enough momentum to disrupt that article if properly weighed. The constant refusal and/or inability to defend this article on its own merits, though, but instead to demand contrasts with other articles, seems to me the major problem. Mackan79 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• POV fork? That's a new one. Quite odd for material that hasn't existed anywhere else, and that reasoning has been soundly rejected in previous AfDs on similar articles. Anyway, quite a number of people have stated why the article should be kept on its own merits; perhaps you should re-read their comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• In the AoIa debates, we entertained a number of suggestions for where to better cover the material, without any solid case being made. While some suggested an article on Human Rights in Israel or in the West Bank, it was pointed out that any adequate discussion of the apartheid debate would clearly disrupt such articles, while "Human Rights" also doesn't really cover the issues. Here, it seems that Social situation in the French suburbs is exactly on point, is neutral, and would fully allow for any apartheid discussion, while also solving the problem not seen in the AoIa article of an otherwise completely unanswered allegation. Can you imagine the Israel article, and the response, if it lacked any statement of disagreement with the analogy whatsoever? As I said, I'm not talking about your intentions, but if this title completely prevents a two-sided examination, and if a more appropriate article can hold the material, then it seems an open and shut case that this article should be deleted or merged as a POV fork. I have still yet to see a response. Also, I think you're incorrect that this has been rejected, as at least one of these articles was soundly deleted.[32] Mackan79 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• This article is about allegations of apartheid, though, not about the social situation in the French suburbs. Also, this article already contains opposing views. Regarding the argument being rejected, I was referring to more recent arguments. Actually, I wasn't even aware of that Australian article. It appears to have been deleted mostly because it was just a stub and wasn't properly developed. Fortunately, however, this article, while it still has room to grow, suffers from none of the flaws of that one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• This article may be about allegations of apartheid, but none of its sources is – except, for a split second, that thing about the mayor.--G-Dett 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep in order to maintain consistency with other articles, pending a "global" resolution of the issue of "apartheid" articles, as discussed in the Arbitration Committee decision almost a year ago. I also think this discussion might go better without the personal attacks against the editors who created/worked on this article. 6SJ7 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Guardian is a strong RS as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the comment from the mayor of Montpellier is misattributed doesn't mean it does not exist: France wakes up to plight of its forgotten cities. Chesdovi 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your reason for keeping? A single sourceable statement that's actually about the purported topic?--G-Dett 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is 3 days old. Instead of voting to delete it, have you tried sourcing this subject further to bring it up to standard? Give it a chance! Chesdovi 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chesovi. I voted weak delete, and clarified that I'd support the article if serious editors came forward and made a serious case for it. I don't know much more about France than the authors of the article do, and I'm not aware of any notable discussion/debate about the topic among reliable sources. That, coupled with my experience of the two editors in question collaborating on frivolous articles that seriously abuse source materials in order to fight a bizarre rear-guard action against an article about Israel-Palestine, makes me skeptical. I am ready to be proven wrong. If evidence emerges that there is a notable, extensive discourse about alleged similarities between France and South Africa (as opposed to a miscellany of quotations on colonialism, urban poverty, gender relations within Islam, ethnic assimilation and secularism, and the headscarf controversy, each data-mined quote bejeweled with the searchword "apartheid", and arrayed together in a constellation of idiosyncratic pointlessness), then I'll happily eat my words and support the article.--G-Dett 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. This is a frivolous nomination. The article is well-researched and contains copious sourcing, and concerns a subject (French racism) that is very much in the news every day. --Mantanmoreland 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm curious as to what news channels you follow, that speak of French racism every single day.

• Comment Quite a few people here just asserting that this article is well sourced or researched. I enjoin everybody to really check those sources, and see for themselves that they are mostly irrelevant. Eg, they do not in any meaningful manner claim and argue that the French government consciously makes systematic racial discrimination an official or unofficial policy.--Victor falk 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Urthogie altmany 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Allegations of Israeli apartheid per Jayjg. -- Y not? 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Humus Sapians. It is very POV to have articles accusing some countries of apartheid while not allowing a similar attacks against others. Allegations of apartheid is an attack against that country, and cannot be written in a neutral manner. The closest thing we can do to make it neutral is allow the allegations against every country. This is the only way to balance it out. Not to mention this article seems to be pretty well sourced.--Sefringle^Talk 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: has anyone else noticed this debate is already longer than the disputed article and its discussion page combined? --Targeman 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's nothing compared to this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination) or this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) or . Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Most of this however is from Israel-Palestine-focused editors. It would be good to get more input from France-focused editors. Targeman, Victor falk, JulesH et al, is there a Wikiproject for France where you could post this?--G-Dett 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding your exquisitely ironic attempts to create two classes of "voters" on this AfD, it is unclear that "France-focused editors" would have any better an understanding of policy, nor is it clear that they would be any more neutral when it came to making these kinds of determinations. On the contrary, given the topic, one might expect them to be less neutral; indeed, their comments so far generally indicate that, User:Paris By Night's nearly inarticulate rant about "a collection of clichés and lies" when listing it being a good example. In any event, it has already been posted on the France Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As for me, I'm based in Belgium but I'm intimately familiar with France and the French press, from the Canard enchaîné to Le Figaro. Here is my, I believe, fairly objective summary of what's really going on in France:

1. Racial tensions exist and are due above all to the high level of unemployment in France (about 10%).
2. Racial hatred is expressed nearly exclusively toward Muslim immigrants. Although they are not the most numerous minority, they are the most visible and vocal and thus attract unwelcome attention.
3. France is arguably the most secular state in Europe. (Radical) Islam, indeed any in-your-face religious observance, is a major social faux-pas.
4. Ghetto warfare and the alleged "apartheid" are mostly limited to the overcrowded, low-income suburbs of large cities like Paris and Marseilles. Vast swaths of rural and small-town France remain free of any such tensions.
5. France has never allowed, tacitly or openly, any form of racial or national segregation. On the contrary: huge emphasis is placed on applying the same laws to everybody without accomodating anybody's religious or political sensibilities. The aim is a "melting pot" as opposed to the "patchwork" multiculturalism practiced in the UK and US. Whether the results so far are promising is debatable.

So there you are, this is what I had to say. The article's subject matter is valid but the title is not. Over to you. --Targeman 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is illuminating, Targeman, but with respect, the question of this article's legitimacy depends not on the validity of the "apartheid" comparison, but rather its notability. It depends, that is, on whether there is a prominent, notable, and enduring debate/discussion about alleged similarities between France and apartheid South Africa. The article in its current form obviously doesn't support this, but then the article in its current form has been written almost entirely by editors with little knowledge of or interest in France or civil-rights issues. So it's theoretically possible that there is a notable debate going on that they haven't been able to track down in their data-mining google searches. To get a sense of what the evidence for such a wide-ranging discussion and debate would look like, have a look at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The quality of the article at any given moment fluctuates wildly due to all the edit-warring, but the bibliography is pretty stable, and gives a good idea of what's missing from this article.--G-Dett 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Racism as a social debate in France is 100% notable. Try talking to a French person 5 minutes and the subject will be brought up. But apartheid? Nonsense. There is no such social debate. Well, maybe amongst Muslim immigrants themselves, but it's not mainstream and is totally absent from the French press. Which is not known for shying away from difficult debates. --Targeman 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Ludo29 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hello, I'm french (and sorry for my english). Informations in this article could be preserved, I don't know. I speak only about linguistic. Nobody in France use this term of "apartheid" : nor for thoses mentioned facts neither for anything else in France. The use of the word "apartheid" has in France an unique meaning : qualify what's were in South Africa. The word "discrimination" is frequented used, for example to mention racism (in politically correct language), but this word also is used about handicap, gay, women and so on. So if the use of the word "apartheid" is correct in english language about french racial discrimination, ok, but if this use is to qualify a french expression for that, it is false; and wikipedia has not to create expression. Sincerely, --Epsilon0 19:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Allegations of American apartheid but I strongly suggest to exclude the propaganda by Le Pen and The Guardian from this article. It also needs more explanation, who alleges or accuses who and for what? There is no separate link to Islamists or French apartheid explaining things in plain English in this article. There is only a hint on Islamism but someone might mistake them for Moslems. greg park avenue 20:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitary section break 1

• Keep per jossi, and please, no attacks. Tewfik^Talk 08:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please show some consideration for the template shown at the start of this discussion: If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia.--Victor falk 08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not move my comments. Per means I read the rationale, and agree with it, and do not want to duplicate it. Tewfik^Talk 08:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• My expertise on France is limited to being born there, spending less than half the three decades I've lived there, and visiting relatives at most twice a year, but I concur with Targeman; though racism is one of the most vigorously discussed subjects in politics, that there would be a serious and notable debate in France about wether apartheid reigns is nonsensical. But this is irrelevant. This article has nothing to do with eventual apartheid in France. It has been created as a disinformation device in a propaganda war. Together with other articles in the same vein its purpose is to create white noise in which to drown one sides' allegations against the other. This is exactly the type of article that bring the worst kind of disrepute on Wikipedia, much worse that it has low quality, low standards, is error-prone, or simply biased: that it is helplessly captive to the gross attempts at manipulating public perception by the participants in some local middle eastern conflict. --Victor falk 07:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mu. I find the {{Allegations of apartheid}} "series" of articles extremely fishy and WP:POINTy in general; see G-Dett's comment above. Most of them focus on a stupid enumeration of instances "who compared the situation in country X with Appartheid". I recommend thorough re-reading of WP:SYN, and recent flood of deletions of "Anti-Fooian sentiment" articles on the basis of WP:SYN; I think I should add WP:LOOKHOWMANYSOURCES to WP:ATA. That being said, some of the contents of this article are salvageable, provided that the editors focus on legitimate issues of segregation problems in said countries (which are sometimes not even ethno-religiously based, see Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba). A casual glance over Google search for segregation in france reveals a lot of scholarly and serious analysis of Segregation in France, which is a) much less loaded and value-neutral term than Apartheid b) can be reasonably proven to exist as a real issue, even despite (or because) the government efforts. The term "segregation" is perhaps not ideal, but at least it does not have the connotation that the governments actively promote the separation. And it will remove the artificial, navel-gazing connection between various {{Allegations of apartheid}}, leaving the fate of each of respective articles to be resolved on its own merits. The "series" should be dissasembled. This one has merits but has a wrong focus. So, rename for the start; resolve the scoping problems against Social situation in the French suburbs. If not improved in that direction, submit to AfD again. Duja► 15:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. I took a thorough read of the previous discussion after writing the above, largely for the purpose of not allowing myself to be biased. Upon reading, I fully endorse Mackan79 and G-Dett's comments on this being largely a POV-fork. In case it wasn't clear from my previous statement, I equally endorse merge to appropriate article(s), with their organization left upon editor's discretion. The title and the focus of this article are hugely inadequate, on several grounds WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK. Duja► 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yours is by far the most useful contribution to this discussion so far. I hereby rescind my vote of Delete and now endorse Mu. A detail: the allegations of apartheid could be rewritten to a disambiguation page pointing to Segregation in X, Y, Z,...--Victor falk 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rename and rewrite. I can only echo what Duja and Targeman have said, and I have to say that the creators of this article plainly know little and understand less about French social issues. I can't think of anyone in French politics or the media who uses the comparison. The issues of racism and social exclusion have a very high profile in French politics, so it's not exactly a hidden subject. This article seems to me to be a fairly desperate attempt to cobble together a number of random quotes to create a narrative that nobody with any familiarity with French politics would recognise. It's practically a case study in POV forking, synthesis and undue weight. Duja's suggestion of a way forward is very sensible (I would propose Social exclusion in France as an alternative title). On a personal note, I wish people here would stop misusing the term "apartheid" for POV reasons - it cheapens and degrades the memory of that inquitous system, much as it's insensitive and inappropriate to use "holocaust" as a generic term to refer to any act of mass killing or depopulation. -- ChrisO 19:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your last sentence, in fact it sounds a lot like something I said more than a year ago, on another talk page. If we could all agree to apply what you have said to all of the "allegations of apartheid" articles -- not counting the South African apartheid article -- then we would finally have a solution to the problem. We need to have consistency. 6SJ7 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to have artificial consistency. We may both dislike the abuse of the term "apartheid", and we may both agree that it's inappropriate to use the term in relation to Israel, but the fact is that those allegations are extremely widely made and extensively sourced (see G-Dett's comments of 16:31 17 July 2007, above). In other words, there's already a noteworthy pre-existing narrative for us to document. That's plainly not the case in this article, which is just an exercise in quote-mining to support an original synthesis produced by Urthogie - the very thing that WP:OR is supposed to prohibit. -- ChrisO 00:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well ChrisO, nice try at explaining the distinction, but I don't buy it. Certainly more has been written about the term's use in relation to Israel than about France, but it's a difference of degree, not of kind. If one is a POV fork, original synthesis, etc., then so is the other. As part of an article on human rights and/or discrimination in each country, a discussion of the use of the term would not be an issue. Obviously that section might be a bit larger for some countries than for others. But once there is an insistence on a separate article for one country, it is inevitable that there are going to be corresponding articles for some other countries. 6SJ7 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and why not : "let's keep all bad articles as is for consistency, since wikipedia contains some bad articles". Not constructive. Benjamin.pineau 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry for my bad English, I'm French. It seems it's only a minor interpretation of the situation in French suburbs, made by very few experts. IMHO these interpretations may be mentioned in Social situation in the French suburbs, but don't deserve a specific article. --Bsm15 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rename and rewrite. I can't improve on what Duja and ChrisO have said - I think they have hit the nail on the head. - Mu 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Simply because there are no such allegations of apartheid in France. Google "french apartheid" (exact phrase) gives 151 hits, and on french version of Google "apartheid français" gives 221 hits... That's an ideological spam. Gedefr 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete'. Another exemple of anti-French POV on the English wikipedia. It sounds like all quotes where France and apartheid were both present have been put in this article without caring if it was just irrelevant. This is sad to see that much POV here. HOW DARE YOU COMPARING THE FRENCH SITUATION TO SOUTH-AFRICAN APARTHEID AND US SEGREGATION (have you heard about "Jena 6" in the US ?) ? There is NO SEGREGATION LAW, NO APARTHEID LAW IN FRANCE (actually you don't even have the right to make statistics based on ethnicity). Furthermore, this isn't fun because this article is clearly instrumentalized in an edit war by Jews and anti-Jews. Apparently, another article has been written about Israel and thus Isrealian want the "French" article to be linked to the serie in order to have theirs deleted as well. Poppypetty 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, you Frogs are touchy ;) Just kidding. "Apartheid" pisses me off, too. --Targeman 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or delete all articles in the series per Jossi. Apartheid happenned in one place - South Africa. Anyone else using that term is both ignorant and also degrading that issue. Can someone tell me if there was apartheid in Nazi Germany? Please don't mix-up apartheid and discrimination. Keep all or nothing. --Shuki 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Apartheid" is a South African term, but it has existed under other names in Nazi Germany, in the USA, in the Occupied Territories (Jewish settlements in Palestine), and in many other places and times. --Targeman 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, and on these articles, the phenomenon is called by its proper name. Just like the article on the segregationist in South Africa in, appropriately, called "apartheid" rather than "South African Shoah", or some Godwin-inspired slur. Rama 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no connection with reality, as clearly demonstrated by the abysmal number and quality of notes and references. Also, the title of the article is provocative and does not match any commonly used expression. Rama 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I am appalled to see that User:Urthogie himself created

• Allegations of Brazilian apartheid (27 March 2007)
• Allegations of American apartheid (4 June 2007)
• Allegations of Chinese apartheid (13 July 2007)
• Allegations of French apartheid (14 July 2007)
• and even Template:Allegations of apartheid (27 March 2007).

Thanks to his efforts, we now have a whole category of highly disruptive articles based on vague allusions, and vituperation by a handful of ill-informed polemists. I strongly advise blasting this lot, and probably also the other members of the "Apparetheid outside of South Africa" series not created by Urthogie. Rama 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment : With this serie (can't wait to read what's next), we can say that Wikipedia English is publishing anything, no need to be relevant and exact... no wonder why you guys have almost 2 millions articles! Regarding this marvellous serie of articles, guess that you'll have (once again) the world against you! Pitiful!

This is sadly true for low-profile articles on political or sociological subjects, especially relating to some particularly tricky subjects like the Middle-East, cults, etc a few others. On the other hand, the quality of high-profile articles on en: tends to be good because they are polished by lots of people, and because people who have first-hand knowledge of the matter can contribute.

As a matter of fact, this very request for deletion is a rather encouraging symptom. What is less encouraging is seeing people swallowing irrelevant sources, counting external links and deeming the article "appropriately sourced" without regard for the relevance of these sources. But occosional failure of proper critical judgement is not specific to en:. Rama 10:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as well as all similar articles. Apartheid refers to a specific historical period of South Africa, with certain laws with de jure legal discrimination between whites and other skin colors. This article does not deal with South Africa, does not deal with de jure discrimination, but is a list of opinions on de facto discrimination in present-day France. At best, it should be renamed/folded into something like "ethnic and religious discrimination in France". In addition, I note that it consists mostly of long-winded opinions; this is non encyclopedic. David.Monniaux 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as it is nonsense. Thierry Caro 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no more comment, it's better, I could be coarse. --ArséniureDeGallium 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and recycle the content. There seems to be no point in making an article on a subject that does not exist. Even a cursory analysis of the article and of the sources allows to see that if the word "apartheid" has been used in certain debates or essays about certain issue in France, it was merely as a striking and powerful metaphor. For instance Ramadan, who speaks of "territorial and social apartheid" because "certain French citizens are treated as second-class citizens". Another refers to "The modernist housing experiments of the sixties have produced apartheid du Corbusier". And so on, it is just about using apartheid as a word that appears to be more striking than another one that can be find in the article and that is probably more correct: "ghettoization ". Bottomline is that this article is building a concept out of the blue based on the use of a word in political debates about the ghettoization of certain areas in France, with the purpose to develop about the responsibility of Islam in the issue (note the very large extracts that are a bit too large). Bradipus 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. About time I took a specific position. The more I think about this article, the more I find it artificial and biased. Plus, User:Urthogie's editing pattern convinces me he or she knows precious little about what (s)he's writing about. --Targeman 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Urthogie and jossi et al. I've said elsewhere regarding these sort of "apartheid" articles that I'm not crazy about them period. However, the nom and delete votes in this case looks like simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. The article is properly sourced, and is perfect alignment with the other similar articles. I haven't read a good explanation why an exception should be made in this case. I'd also ask that the "deletionists" in this case try and ease up on the ad hominem arguments. They're poor and don't work. <<-armon->> 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Racial tensions are a fact of life in France and only an idiot would try to deny it. What irks me (and what you take for an ad hominem argument) is that the author of the article is politically motivated (see those other "apartheid" articles) and writes about complex questions concerning a country he or she doesn't know. I firmly believe you should refrain from writing articles on such extremely sensitive issues if you don't speak the language (no sources in French!) and have never spent any significant amount of time in the country. I don't write articles about the Kashmir conflict. Why? Don't speak the language, never been there. Sure I've read a lot about it. Does that make me feel sufficiently informed to write an encyclopedia article? No way. So back on topic, at the very least the contents of this article should be merged with an appropriate one, and the terribly misguided word "apartheid" dropped altogether. --Targeman 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article is not properly sourced. It is all too obvious that the article was started with the idea "I am going to prove that there is something about Apartheid in France no matter what", and a posteriori collected articles which happened to contain theboth the words "France" and "Apartheid", without regard for accurately citing the spirit of the article, not taking into account the notability of these articles. In fact, the mere scarcety of the sources should be enough to convince anyone that there is not such thing as a debate on "Apartheid in France", given that those who are desperate to claim there is one have to resource to such thin references. Rama 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  Where have you read ad hominem arguments by deletionists ? As Rama, Targeman, Bradipus, etc. have pointed out there is simply no allegation of apartheid in France, period. This article is a complete fiction, and has no source relevant to its subject. WP deals with the real world, not with the fantasies of Urthogie and the like.Gedefr 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by "no source relevant to the subject"; every single source in the article alleges apartheid by France, and they're all reliable. A number are by academics, and some are French sources; Le Monde Diplomatique for example. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  I meant what I mean : no source. For instance, your quote from Le Monde Diplomatique is completely measleading : the author refers to a process of ghettoisation, and uses the word apartheid only once in the text, and only as a metaphor, as the adjectif urban (urban apartheid), makes it clear. That's even clearer if you read the article of Laurent Bonelli to wich he refers to when using the words urban apartheid: Bonelli does not use at all the word apartheid, and does not event think that the riot where the product of racism -but of the decline of the french working class as a whole. So, we are left with a few quotes (some perfectly measleading as Le Monde, where the author denonces the supposedly multiculturalism produced anglo-saxon apartheid). And for a good reason: there is no such accusation of apartheid in France. Once more : just google "french apartheid" or "apartheid français" (exact phrase) and you'll get less than 300 hits...Gedefr 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  All of them use the word "apartheid," in most cases once only, never again mentioning it or South Africa. The article weaves these fifteen data-mined quotes into an original research essay about a supposed linguistic trend detected by two Wikipedians.--G-Dett 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Apartheid is a strong word, with a very special meaning. Nothing to do with France, yesterday or today... Clio64B 22:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've re-organized a bunch of the material to create a more coherent flow, and added other reliable sources with interesting viewpoints on the subject. I encourage everyone to read and re-assess the material in that light, particularly all the French editors who have recently joined at the invitation of the French Wikiproject, and who seem to be taking this all very personally. Please try to adopt a more impartial and less emotional view, if possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Israel-focused editors can teach y'all to be more impartial and less emotional about these things.--G-Dett 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's still a flaky compendium of out-of-context quotes that has been spun into an original synthesis for political reasons completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Quite honestly, Jay, neither you nor Urthogie are doing yourselves any favours when you pretend that you've suddenly acquired an interest in French social policy; the arrival of the usual clique of (pro-)Israeli partisans all voting in lockstep with you shows rather clearly what's going on here. There may be some salvageable content in the article that could be repurposed elsewhere, but let's not fool ourselves that this is anything other than a continuation of the silly political games concerning your objections to the existence of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. -- ChrisO 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• ChrisO, would it be possible for you to refrain from making ad hominem statements in future comments? Please leave the POV political analysis and negative characterizations of those who you disagree with for the various Wikipedia attack message boards. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis

• OK guys, here comes an in-depth analysis of the article's sources, each and every one of them. Nothing but cold, hard facts. Grab a beer and enjoy:

1. Sources 1,2, and 3 refer exclusively to colonial-era France. Needless to say that colonial discrimination half a century ago and modern French society have precious little in common.
2. Source 4 says “urban apartheid”, and only once, in its title. Read what it’s really talking about. Quote: “lifetimes of rampant unemployment, school failure, police harassment, and everyday racist discrimination… regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion.” That has nothing to do with apartheid, as any first-year history student will tell you.

   Wow, racism regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion ! That's rather original. Rama 08:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Source 5: same thing. “Social apartheid”. This is a metaphor as above. Please look up “metaphor” in a dictionary.
4. Source 6: dead link.
5. Source 7. Quote: ““Some of these individuals will likely find work in the underground economy and will continue to have poor long-term prospects as the law of unintended consequences continues to discourage French employers to take the risk and employ marginal workers,” he says. Hutchison adds that in this sense, France will continue to mirror apartheid-era South Africa”. That’s like saying that because I’m vegetarian, in a sense I live like a Hindu.
6. Source 8. Quote: “"We will have a sort of apartheid," says Kepel. "Everyone will be proud to defend his own identity — I am a Muslim, I am a Christian, I am a Jew first. And then a Frenchman, second. This is not acceptable.’’ Do you call this an allegation of apartheid?
7. Source 9. Quote: “France cannot be 'a juxtaposition of communities', must be founded on common values and must not follow the Anglo-Saxon model which allows ethnic groups to barricade themselves inside geographical and cultural ghettos leading to 'soft forms of apartheid'”. 1989. Anything more solid and recent perhaps?
8. Source 10. Quote: “The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.” Please read that again. (Side note, different subject: this is a source from Saudi Arabia. How low do you have to stoop to get your sources? This source is 100% controlled by a theocratic dictatorship.)
9. Source 11 and 12. Please read them. These are about Muslims retreating into self-imposed “apartheid”.
10. Source 13. “Urban apartheid”. Notice how apartheid never stands alone in any of these sources? It’s a metaphor.
11. Source 14: subscribers only. Thanks a lot.
12. Source 15. “Apartheid du Corbusier”. I assume you’re not familiar with Le Corbusier. Please look him up, come back, and tell me what it is about.
13. Source 16. Quote: “Montpellier's socialist mayor, Hélène Mandroux, denied that her authority had been slow to help. "Terms like urban apartheid are overdramatic," she said." Need I say more?

To conclude: not a single one of this article's sources contains any sort of allegation of segregation policies of the French state toward anybody. I rest my case. Thanks for reading. --Targeman 00:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Judging from your analysis, I'd say that the sources are using "apartheid" solely as a shorthand or metaphor for social exclusion. Would this be a fair summary, in your view? -- ChrisO 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Precisely. --Targeman 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this nonsense, as soon as possible. I trust that whomever closes this discussion will take into account the transparent vote-stacking among those favouring retention. CJCurrie 00:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the closer of the discussion take into account just this alleged "transparent vote-stacking among those favouring retention", or should he/she also take into account the explicit and shameless canvassing and recruiting of votes by those favoring deletion? Isarig 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Shameless vote-stacking? More like inviting debate from people who may be familiar with the subject. Is this prohibited/discouraged? And no, nobody should take into account anything but the facts. The number of people voting is irrelevant: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion --Targeman 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note also that there's an important difference between inviting knowledgeable people and inviting non-knowledgeable partisans to make up the numbers. Actual French people tend to have a rather more informed perspective than non-European partisans playing silly buggers. -- ChrisO 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you also think that Actual Israelis have a "more informed perspective" on issues like, oh, say, Allegations of Israeli apartheid than "non-Israeli partisans playing silly buggers"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, because the focus of the dispute is completely different. See my reply to 6SJ7 below. -- ChrisO 07:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've seen it, but I have to disagree. Attempts to create two classes of "voters" on this AfD, and, indeed, two classes of countries to which the "apartheid meme" is applied are a marvellous, yet unsustainable, irony. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed Israelis are more informed for that precise article. But why the hell do people keep talking about Israel in this page ??? This country has nothing to do with the article we're talking about. What's that mess ? Let's not add further confusion, please. Benjamin.pineau 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ouch, that's harsh, man.--Targeman 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• But accurate enough, I think. I should add (per CJCurrie's comment) that I'm not aware of any evidence that people have been trying to rope in partisans, though a fair number of them certainly seem to have ended up here somehow. Off-wiki communications, perhaps. -- ChrisO 02:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• (Response to Targeman about "vote counting") For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion does not say that the number of people expressing opinions on one side or another is irrelevant. (I avoid the word "voting" so as not to upset the purists among us.) That guideline (and it is only a guideline, and a somewhat contested one at that) contains a section on "Deletion, moving and featuring" that specifically says that an AfD (or similar process) "is not decided based strictly on the number of people choosing one side or another, but on the strength of the arguments presented." So it's not decided strictly on the basis of numbers, but numbers surely are not irrelevant to the outcome. They are one of the factors that is taken into consideration. 6SJ7 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the clarification. --Targeman 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• (Response to ChrisO about "actual French people) So let's see if I have this straight, ChrisO. For the corresponding article on Israel, we should just rely on the sources, but for this one, the opinions of the people from the country in question should get more weight? How about following the same set of criteria for each article? 6SJ7 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The two aren't comparable, because they're starting from different points. In the case of Israel, nobody disputes that there's a widespread, well-documented meme that compares Israel to apartheid South Africa. The nature of the political dispute is over whether the accusation is justified, not whether anyone makes it. In the case of France, however, a "French apartheid" meme simply isn't part of the political discourse. Our French editors are best placed to advise us on whether such a meme exists in French politics - to which they're exposed every day, don't forget - and so far they've unanimously said no. That's the difference. In the case of Israel, Wikipedia describes an existing meme that's been widely discussed in numerous reliable source - there are even entire books about it. In the case of France, Urthogie has invented a non-existent meme and "documented" it with out-of-context quotes mined from Google. It's pure original reseach. -- ChrisO 07:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Except, of course, that the French editors aren't making that argument at all. Rather, they are simply outraged that anyone would use the "meme" in relation to "la belle France"; their national pride is insulted. On the other hand, more dispassionate French authors and academics are much more comfortable using that "meme". And the "meme" is a general one, used in relation to all sorts of situations of alleged discrimination; it's not an "Israeli" meme alone. Now, it's true that the meme is used more often in relation to Israel, but that's a reflection of the currently fashionable demonization of Israel, based partly on ignorance, partly on geo-politics, partly on good marketing efforts by Palestinians, and partly on much darker forces. Regardless, there is an apartheid "meme" or "analogy" or "epithet" that is in common used in regards to all sorts of things, and it's no more nor less valid in any one situation than in any other. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Outraged because "apartheid" insults "la belle France"? Nonsense. First of all, why the hell are you people bringing up Israel here? What does that have to do with France? Secondly, I'm not French and I have no ax to grind here, although your last comment strongly suggests you do. The article we're discussing is a perfect example of selective sourcing meant to support a theory. It insults me as someone who knows France and who knows what good writing is to read an article written on a high school level and defended by emotionally charged, non-scientific arguments. --Targeman 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I used to be a teacher at college. If any student of mine were to submit such a shamelessly ill-sourced paper, boy would I have savaged him. --Targeman 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• No wonder you used to be a teacher (I think they call them professors or lecturers). Certainly it is obvious that a notable litany of allegations of apartheid have been sourced. It is for our readers to decide the merits, but that is a content issue, not a reason to delete. If you are so preocupied with quality, you can chose Allegations of Jordanian apartheid, whose sources are certainly not notable or even relevant. And teh few that are belong in Allegations of apartheid.--Cerejota 02:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not only a teacher (or lecturer if you will), but a journalist, interpreter, and researcher, if you feel like questioning my qualifications. Language is my trade and calling this list of completely distorted arguments a "notable litany of allegations"... No, I'll not comment on this.--Targeman 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• And yes, I am preoccupied by quality. The article you mentioned is badly sourced right now but is infinitely more plausible than an article about allegations of "apartheid" in France. The situation in Palestinian refugee camps bears no comparison to living on dole in France, I'm sure you're aware of that. Now would you care to address my analysis of this article's sources? --Targeman 02:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• And you qualifications are relevant why? However, since you have indeed addressed the matter at hand, I must point out that your WP:OR is not supported by sources. It is your opinion, but ultimately irrelevant to wikipedia. If a source like Le Monde diplomatique can spend time dealing with these allegations as they apply to France, then they have merit. You are making an unsupported claim that flies in the face of sources. I suggest you take it up with Le Monde diplomatique, not us. I am sure your credentials would come handy over by them. --Cerejota 02:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hang on. I'd never dream of questioning the reliability and independence of Le Monde Diplomatique. In fact, it's one of the best French publications available. And I've never accused this article of being original research. The author(s) have clearly invested time and effort to source the article properly. Here is what I'm talking about: the word "apartheid" is used in each of these sources as either a metaphor or in a context which has nothing to do with the definition of the word "apartheid". There is no allegation of apartheid here. What we have are grievances concerning the integration of foreigners (more specifically, Muslims), into French society. That could be a viable article (if it weren't so one-sided, but that could be improved). However, this haphazard collection of - once again - mostly solid sources, but whose choice was dictated only by the word "apartheid", really doesn't justify the title. It's like saying "USA is a fascist country". Go ahead and Google it. 2,600,000 hits for USA + fascism. Among the sources mentioning both words in one article, you'll find the Guardian and the University of Texas, among others. Are you beginning to see what happened here? Cheers --Targeman 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The introduction of the article clearly state the the use is as analogy, not as direct comparison, so this is recognized a priori. It explores the policies of the French state (current and historical) that have been notably analogized with apartheid. Along with the Israel and Brazil articles, the French one is actually one of the better ones in the whole sorry lot. Why delete this one while keeping around aberrations like the United States and China around? The Francophilia is running way too thick...--Cerejota 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The introduction talks about analogies with South African apartheid. There is not a single analogy of this kind in the sources provided. And none of the sources talks about any French policy that would in any way resemble South African policies under apartheid. If I'm wrong, please correct me. And please, let's try to judge this article on its own merits. I haven't read the others. I'm not interested in the consistency of deletion policy; I'm concerned by the intellectual honesty of this article. Its contents have nothing in common with its title or summary. It is simply misleading. And it's a shame that you mistake objectivity for Francophilia.--Targeman 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. Any volunteers to address my analysis, point after point?--Targeman 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

why would there be anyone interested in this? It is, as you say "your analysis" - in other words original research, which is entirely irrelevant. Isarig 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• You are joking, aren't you? In case you haven't understood, I mean: who is willing to challenge the validity of my arguments? I have read the article multiple times and all of the sources, from A to Z. If nobody steps up to prove me wrong, we shall have to conclude that nobody is seriously interested in discussing the merits of this article. And I have reasons to believe I'm the only one here who's actually took the time to read it all. I'm too old to engage in childish tug-o-wars and name calling. Once again: serious people, raise your hands please.--Targeman 05:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your arguments boil down to "they're using it as a metaphor". Well, duh! Of course it's used as a metaphor; only South Africa actually had a policy of apartheid, in all other contexts it's a metaphor, analogy, epithet, etc. Your "analysis" applies equally well to all the "Allegations of apartheid" articles, and you don't even need to look at the sources to know that. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• No. There's an enormous difference between accusing a government of apartheid-like policies and comparing the social conditions of a country to South Africa under apartheid. "Allegations of apartheid" means "accusations of apartheid-like policies". Now, were this article named "Comparisons between life in France and life in South Africa under apartheid", that would be consistent with its content. But hey, I can think of at least 150 countries where one could draw such comparisons. Are there 150 articles like this in the pipeline? --Targeman 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• However, the sources make clear that it is indeed government policies that have created this situation; first, the rather obviously apartheid-like colonial policies in Algeria, and then their transference to France, where, As such, the colonial dual cities described by North African urban theorists Janet Abu-Lughod, Zeynep Çelik, Paul Rabinow, and Gwendolyn Wright—in which native medinas were kept isolated from European settler neighborhoods out of competing concerns of historical preservation, public hygiene, and security—have been effectively re-created in the postcolonial present, with contemporary urban policy and policing maintaining suburban cités and their residents in a state of immobile apartheid, at a perpetual distance from urban, bourgeois centers. Apartheid is a policy of separation, impoverishment, class difference, etc., typically linked to "race". The Africans forced into suburban cités by French government policies experience all of those things as a result of government policy. Well, at least according to the sources. On the other hand, opposing views are brought as well (per NPOV). Some sources insist that the apartheid is a self-imposed one. Others say various other things. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• _{Shit, we're cornering ourselves}All you've mentioned is indeed true. The problem is, the article's title doesn't reflect all this. If you want to discuss segregation in the French colonies, create a separate article. If you want to compare that period with the supposed segregation nowadays, call your article History of racial segregation in France. As for self-imposed apartheid, it's not apartheid, just like choking on a pretzel is not the same as being strangled. If you want to discuss the social phenomenon of withdrawal or seclusion, create a separate article. If you want to write about Islamism in France, create an appropriately titled article. If you want to discuss the influence of brutalist urbanism on living standards, create an article to that effect. This article mixes all these things into one big bag and gives it the name of only one of the subjects discussed. It's like having an article called Dogs which discusses dogs, cats, hamsters, and zoophilia, all on one page.--Targeman 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

_{moving back to the left side of the page}Targeman, those who object to the "apartheid" analogy/metaphor/meme/epithet always insist that it is inappropriate for reasons x, y, and z. In every single country and situation to which it is applied (aside from South Africa itself), there is always a counter-argument that says "yes, but don't you see that it's a bad analogy in this case because...", and "really this topic should be discussed more rationally and neutrally in articles a, b and c". It's as true for Brazil, China, Cuba, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States as it is for France. And the solution you propose works equally well for all of the articles in this series. However, based on my experience on about 10 related AfDs, it seems so far that the will of Wikipedians is to avoid that solution. Maybe you'll have more success. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, my solution applies equally well to all the articles you mention. If the "will" of Wikipedian is to avoid that solution, as you say, more should be done to convince. The problem sure won't go away if we pretend there is none. Maybe that's what the authors of this infamous series actually want - to be left alone and write their drivel in peace and blissful ignorance. And you know what? I'm so tired of this shit, I'm tempted to drop it and let them play in their sandbox. --Targeman 16:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, don't lose heart here Targeman; you've gotten much farther here than ever before. Even some of the worst of the POV-pushers who defended the inflammatory titles and articles in the past seem to be coming around to a more reasonable approach, though some are still fighting a valiant rear-guard action in defense of "equal but separate" treatment for one specific article. However, ignoring their inevitable furious fulminations and ad hominem analyses, and focussing on a solution, might well solve this once and for all. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Targeman, the authors of this infamous series don't want to be left alone to write more drivel. They want their drivel to enrage people to the point of proposing to delete everything that resembles, however superficially, their drivel. The strategy is to create as many bogus "apartheid" articles as possible, in the hopes that the resulting gooey blob of verbal muck will envelop an article they're opposed to (but have been unsuccessful in deleting) in its deathly embrace. Please have a long look at that article, Targeman, I implore you. If you're tired of the sh!?-stupid strawman arguments you've been subjected to on this page about French sensitivity and national feeling, as well as all the sophistry that tries to alchemize an original thesis about the use of language into a notable topic, and primary sources into secondary ones, then just imagine the sophistry and strawman-arguments you're being bombarded with in regards to the original article. That article, unlike the fake "sister" articles, has a subject. --G-Dett 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this situation sparks from the deplorable habit of making articles out of propaganda terms without the slightest critical distance, which is common on Middle-East-related articles. Typical instances are Allegations of Israeli apartheid (anti-Israel POV) or New antisemitism (Isaeli right-wing POV). These articles share the pattern of commenting on outrageous concepts with no proper definition, and spinning out of control (One day, someone will start a Berlin Wall of Israel and noone will find the geographical absurdity disturbing).

The root of the evil is in the failure of distancing self from the propaganda lexical field and isolating the substencial meaning. For instance, the so-called "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" are, in fact, accusations of segregationist policies, Human Right violations, or something like this. That these criticism happened to be formulated using the word "apartheid" is barely relevent: it is maybe footnote-worthy, sub-section-worthy at most, but certainly not a proper title.

Only taking the surface words into consideration is stupid, worthy of first-generation search engines. It is failure to address the problem at its root which causes the present annoyance. Generating bogus articles which contain only noise out of exasperation is human, but it is unacceptable. Rama 10:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitary section break 2

• Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm french and honestly I have never heard such a thing about France. It's a pure WP:POINT in reaction of the page Allegations of Israeli apartheid... Markadet fr 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

comment WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --Sefringle^Talk 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete this is not founded and discriminatory. Apartheid is a very strong word and NEVER in my french history I had to read something like that. The person who wrote all apartheid articles don't know much about history, and sources are questionnable! Have a nice vote... --Antaya 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Sefringle^Talk 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

B.T.W., where are Germany, England, Portugal, Spain, Danmark... Every country have blood on their hands. It's pretty easy to write something like this based on questionnable sources... --Antaya 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that the sources are highly reliable, and include noted academics among others. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think "Apartheid" is an appropriate word for explaining the integration problems in France (or anywhere else in the world)... and espacially on Wikipedia! Everywhere you can hear about xenophobia : shall we call that apartheid? I think the title is not appropriated. --Antaya 06:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, regardless of whether or not you like it, reliable sources actually use the term, and various Wikipedia editors have already insisted that the will of Wikipedia is that these articles have that word in the title. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus that "these articles" are properly grouped together in the first place: no one has ever produced a single reliable source supporting the linkage, many editors have explicitly rejected it as a transparent POV ploy, and a recent TfD discussion on precisely this question ended acrimoniously in "no consensus." So to talk about "these articles" is already begging the question. But I'm curious anyway, where do "various Wikipedia editors" insist this about the "will of Wikipedia"?--G-Dett 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, apartheid and segregation imply that the state is involved in the discrimination. This isn't the case. This discrimination is a really complex problem where they aren't guilty people and organizations at one side and "immigrant" victims at the other one. They are responsible for part of it and the state is responsible for other reasons. Why not writing a good Discrimination issues in France instead ? Poppypetty 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

These sources are absolutely irrelevant and not reliable. Nowadays, you can source every single stupid idea if you want to. As mentioned above, you can create an article on Allegations that USA is (are ?) a facist country with The Guardian and University of Texas sources. That doesn't make the article relevant. This is disastrous to see people making POV-pushing here. Let's try to create quality content. Poppypetty 06:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Youa re saying a former Prime Minister of France is not a reliable source? Le Monde diplomatique? The things people will say when they want to push POV...--Cerejota 12:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed absurd; not only the sources you mentioned, but also notable academics who study and write on exactly these issues have used the analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Once each, in passing. There's no indication whatsoever that their use of it was notable or even noted.--G-Dett 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. High quality, relevant sources, interesting topic, should not be censored just because people don't like it. FeloniousMonk 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of liking it or not. It's more a question of relevancy and accuracy. Poppypetty 06:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete It's a caracteristical french bashing, on a allegation which does not recover any reality in France. For the one who will probably comment with a WP:IDONTKNOWIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I will answer : IKNOWTHISISALIE and ICANNOTSUPPORTSUCHINSANITIES. To be a little more bit serious WP:POINT, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and, most of all, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Grimlockfr 11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There might be french bashing in the article, but most of it is provided by French sources.Thats the gist of it. There is no original research and your argument and similar arguments are invalid in so far as all material is sourced and balanced. I think we can fix the quotefarm and re-write a bit, but this article far from bashing France, touches upon a notable debate. Those who have commented they have never heard of the debate in France are either ill-informed or disingenuous: as sourced, even French prime ministers have see fit to address the analogy.--Cerejota 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wait a second. That there's a notable debate and that it's a central part of French politics is undeniable. It's just that the title is absolutely ignorant. Racism, social exclusion, integration. Rename the article. Apartheid? Nonsense. "Urban apartheid" and "social apartheid" have nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with apartheid in South Africa, as I would expect any high school graduate to know. The article's defendants argue the sources are reliable (well, they're silent on the Saudi source). Sure. But for Chrissakes please read those sources. If after reading them, you're still able to say without blushing that they contain serious allegations of apartheid-like policies, you belong in politics, not in academia. A reliable source per se is not enough; it has to directly concern the topic of your article (paper, dissertation). If you're arguing that there are allegations of apartheid, choose sources that say so. If you're writing about, I don't know, paper manufacturing, don't use sources talking about Greenpeace, deforestation, or sustainable development. It's intellectually dishonest and will not make you pass the exams. Class dismissed. --Targeman 12:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Except, of course, that the reliable sources chose to use exactly the term "apartheid", and the apartheid analogy. "Dismissing" the "class" will not make that inconvenient fact go away, and that fact also make hash of any claim that the sources do not "directly concern the topic of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The topic of the article is "allegations of French apartheid." None of the sources deal with that topic at all, except the one with the thing about the mayor.--G-Dett 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, and respectable sources also use words like "fuck" and "bullshit". How about Allegations of fucking bullshit in XXX? You could very easily find respectable sources using both in one article. Would such an article pass your scrutiny? Would you then find that kind of argument valid? --Targeman 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "and the apartheid analogy." -> analogy, you named it, and that's the point (for every article's source). But the article isn't titled "Analogies between France's social situation and apartheid". As is, the title states that we're talking about true apartheid. Well, even it would be retitled as such, how much strongly POV (if not insulting and xenophobic) articles should we introduce everytime a journalist made a catching metaphor ? Benjamin.pineau 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your argument is equally applicable to any of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles; you should be thinking of systemic solutions. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, and I said my judgment applies to all "Allegations of apartheid" articles (see my "delete" statements). Deleting all of them is indeed the preferable achievement. I just can't see how them being all bad would justify to keep that one. Benjamin.pineau 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • There is a debate about discrimination, ghettoization, not about apartheid or segregation which are irrelevant. I just don't see the point about this article which is just a succession of quotes without real analysis of the discrimination phenomena. Poppypetty 12:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem is that these sources are misrepresented. Twisting references and making up connections between unconnected sources is Original Resarch (to be polite). And for your information, Le Monde Diplomatique is a heavily op-ed paper which occasionally runs totally ludicrous stories. Rama 12:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah, this is just what we need... more inherently POV crap. At least move the article to something less inflammatory. Apartheid has a very distinct meaning and those who know it would be deeply disgusted by attempts to compare debates over scarfs to that. That said, I'm not sure what is causing the most harm... AfD'ing these articles or denying the trolls who edit them the recognition. Judging from past AfD's the best approach is just to ignore them at let them have their precious articles. MartinDK 11:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The article is very well cited. It has multiple sources and it is notable. The nomination fails to prove why this article should be deleted. And per User:Sefringle. Watchdogb 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep as per Watchdogb Harlowraman 06:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The nomination clearly proves that the "multiple sources" are irrelevant. Sourcing is not about listing as many random external links as possible. Rama 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The important points are not all in the nomination, but have to do with whether this is the proper name for the article. Considering most of these sources use the word only in passing in their discussion of broader issues that are neutrally covered in other articles (chiefly Social situation in the French suburbs), WP:NPOV#POV_forks seems to directly apply ("The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.") Mackan79 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

comment Who says there are random external links ? I am sorry but I do know the difference between source and EL. Thanks. Proper name for the article does not permit a AFD. It's better off at RFM. Watchdogb 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do say that the external links are random. They just happen to be random documents gathered over the Internet containing the lemma "apartheid". This behaviour is worthy of a very small Perl script. Rama 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Example: we don't yet have Allegations of Swiss apartheid ? No problem, search "apartheid in Switzerland" and you'll come up with something. Like, for instance, ""Denunciations coming from South Africa directly led to the aliens’ police acting against people criticising apartheid in Switzerland," Hug said." [33]. The so-called "references" of Allegations of French apartheid are of the same nature (and probably the result of the same procedure). Rama 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the right name, that's not correct when the neutral article on the subject already exists. Jay has basically admitted that the Social situation in the French suburbs is the subject;[34] he simply wants to keep this particular name. Unless there is some new subject here, then deletion is the appropriate remedy. Mackan79 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no I haven't. Please don't put words in my mouth again, especially when they misrepresent my views. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you described the topic of this article, and in describing it, you described the situation in the French suburbs by name.[35] You also still have not explained why this material couldn't fit into that article, other than to beg the question by saying that this article is about the allegation. I don't care to spar with you; if you want to clarify why these sources require a new article specifically on this one allegation, then please do. Mackan79 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As above, your argument is equally applicable to all the "Allegations of apartheid..." articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't clarify the issue. For one thing, you may have noticed that the Israel article has many times more and much more detailed sources than this one, which would generally be an important factor in whether an independent article is necessary. You may also have noticed that Social situation in the Israeli suburbs isn't an article, nor Social unrest in Israel in 2005. So should they be? This seems to be the crux of your argument. Mackan79 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It really does clarify the issue. The fact that there are more sources for the Israel article is, as explained above, a reflection of the currently fashionable demonization of Israel, based partly on ignorance, partly on geo-politics, partly on good marketing efforts by Palestinians, and partly on much darker forces. In any event, the "delete" arguments here boil down to two: 1) I'm outraged you would accuse France of this, and 2) France doesn't really practice apartheid, it's only an metaphor/analogy/meme. I'm ignoring, of course, the plentiful ad hominem statements from the usual suspects, speculating about motivations, trying to divide editors into 2 classes, etc., as they are irrelevant to AfDs (and, frankly, to Wikipedia). Of the actual arguments, the first is merely an emotional reaction, and the second applies to all these articles, including the Israel one, regardless of whether there are 16 sources or 160.

Ideally Wikipedia articles should be about encyclopedic concepts expressed in neutral ways. When it comes to articles on politics or history, a good yardstick is "would Britannica have an article on this topic"? Of course Britannica would never have an article on "Allegations of Israeli apartheid"; anyone proposing such a non-scholarly, obviously politicized POV-pushing notion would, at best, be dismissed with a sneer, regardless of the political beliefs of the editors. Frankly, it's a greater embarrassment to Wikipedia than 5,000 crufty articles on Pokemon. Yet, the usual POV-pushers insist on its existence, using the usual spurious arguments which, in reality, fool no-one, not even themselves. That article is, in fact, by far the worst of the "Allegations of apartheid" series, far worse than this one, because it takes 10,000 poorly-written words to say what could be said more clearly in two or three paragraphs, and because its silly POV-pushing agenda is so nakedly transparent. In, for example, the Cuban apartheid article, the people who invented the term "tourist apartheid" were Cubans themselves, and they're the ones who use it, so discussing the topic is not an "anti-Cuban" ploy. Oh, and in case you were wondering, Britannica actually does mention "tourist apartheid" in its Cuba article.

In any event, Wikipedia has to decide on its standards for articles; by the current standards, the French apartheid article is perfectly encyclopedic and complies with all policies. If Wikipedia decides to become less political, and set a higher standard, then all the articles would have to go. I guess we'll have to wait and see which way this plays out; but an option that is not on the table is the double-standard currently espoused by those enamored of the Israeli apartheid article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you've misrepresented the "delete" position so willfully, so radically, and so stubbornly that it is difficult to know how to proceed. "1) I'm outraged you would accuse France of this." What outrage has been expressed here is largely a response to an attempt to hijack one part of Wikipedia in order to make a point about another. Your cracks about "la belle France" and the sensitivities of "French editors" are wholly inappropriate. France-focused editors have in the course of this discussion suggested topics like "French racism" and "Segregation in France," topics neither you nor any of the zealots you march in editorial lockstep with would ever let pass in an Israel-related article. They do not need a lecture from you about impartiality, or on how to keep their nationalist passions distinct from questions of editorial policy. "2) France doesn't really practice apartheid, it's only an metaphor/analogy/meme." This is a strawman. What has actually been pointed out, repeatedly, is that the sources you've provided do not give evidence of a prominent debate/discussion/meme/whatever about French "apartheid." Your sources are simply primary sources that use the word "apartheid," usually once only and in passing, for an astonishing variety of subjects: Algeria, immigrant self-segregation, discrimination, head-scarf controversies, gender relations. You've simply woven these together into a narrative of your own devising, about a pattern you've detected; it's pure original research. This is a policy objection, which you're trying now to misrepresent as an ideological one about what France is or isn't guilty of. Knock it off. Your hoax has been exposed; don't make it worse with further deceptions. As for "double standards": you have voted five times to delete "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," even as you actively support, promote, and defend these other "apartheid" articles with every tactic at your disposal, including "keep" votes in deletion debates.--G-Dett 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I don't suppose there's any point in asking you to focus on articles rather than other editors? I know I've made this same request of you about 100 times before and it's never made a bit of difference, but I always remain hopeful. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, does one address serial WP:POINT-violations, systematic creation of bogus articles for leveraging purposes, and chronic disruption of talk-page discussion (including radical misrepresentation of opponents' positions) without focusing on the editor(s) involved?--G-Dett 12:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review begging the question. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed it here.--G-Dett 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Apartheid, per definition, is an official government policy, legally classifying people by race in order to segregate (not some debatable and potential side effects of non racial, non ethnic, policies, neither urbanism/ economics measures relegating poor people in urbans suburbs). This article doesn't talk (and hasn't any source to talk about) "Allegations of French apartheid", but metaphorically, or "quasi-apartheid" (sic), or "a sort of apartheid" (sic), or "partial similarities, in some aspects, to apartheid", "urban apartheid" (sic), or "informal apartheid system" etc. (as per article's sources). That's why, per NPOV, it'd better be renamed under an accurate title (say, "similarities with apartheid consequences in French contemporary society", or "social exclusion in France"). But what's remains questionable in this rename case is either Wikipedia should stay neutral and factual (ie. facts are not metaphors) or accepts sensationalists, strongly opinionated and inaccurate terms used as implicit comparisons (not to say POV) as main articles topics (rather than presented in the body of an accurate article, to properly balance it), just because some journalist somewhere made an approximative and shocking comparison -a known stylistic effect- to make her point. As Targeman showed, we could also write articles like "allegations of USA [metaphorical] fascism" with proper sources (and the same goes with any politician with international stature, eg. "Allegations of Tony Blair being the poodle of Bush", "Olmert's Qana's genocid", and so on, it's endless). How could non neutrals and inaccurate titles result in well balanced articles ? Let's not open such a Pandora's box. I ask for deletion (and content to go on 2005 civil unrest in France and other relevant articles). Same, if proposed for AfD, for all other "allegation of apartheid in xx", or article whose titles contains words like "genocide", "dictatorship", "nazi", "pogrom", "stalinism",... used as metaphors. Sadly this page wasn't purposed at discussing the whole lot, but please, let's avoid WP:ALLORNOTHING. Benjamin.pineau 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• weak Keep There are enough reliable sources of notable people, organizations and countries accusing France of apartheid, but some sections deviate from the title and subject of the article (particularly under the 'Islamism' section), if it is about apartheid it shouldn't talk about 'self imposed segregation' I think that is not a very good comparison to the South African apartheid. However the article is still mostly good and encyclopedic. Bleh999 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Per your previous comment, you may not know that the entire list of these articles except one was recently created and remains under rather heated debate, while at least one of them has been deleted.[36] This is what has led to much of the debate here. Mackan79 18:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are posting a link to a different article, it has little relevance to this article, even if they share the 'allegations of apartheid' title, we should judge each individually on their own merits. Bleh999 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was only responding to your comment that deleting this one would create a glaring omission, which I took to be in reference to the set of articles. I may have misread you; if so, never mind. My general concern is that the material here would be better treated under a different name. Mackan79 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleh999, there are not "enough reliable sources of notable people, organizations and countries accusing France of apartheid", and the proof of that is the "reference" section of the article: although its author is commited to demonstrate that such claims exist, he has failed to provide sources which back his point. His so-called "sources" merely happen to use the word "apartheid", but in no case are these articles claiming that such a thing exists in France, they merely mention the term as to make a provocative comparison. Just like people have compared New Orleans to Atlantis, and it would be ridiculous to say that some people claim that New Orleans is Atlantis. Rama 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but your argument is equally applicable to all the articles in the "Allegations of apartheid..." article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable, referenced and neutral. Lotlil 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I tried to give some information about the subject of the article itself (allegation of French apartheid) but it seems that the only thing which is interesting people here is allegation of Israel apartheid or the ways some people try to get this article deleted by publishing notes built on the same frame. I really think that we should avoid to enter in their game and focus on "allegation of French apartheid". My opinion is that the article should be either deleted or renamed. Jeemde 09:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has no contributions outside of this AFD. Their comment should be treated like it was written by an IP address and ignored..--Urthogie 11:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You speak about me? It is true that I have no contribution in other AFD. I discovered the way I could participate to Wikipedia only one day ago; before I was only using Wikipedia a source of information - and I thought it was a quite reliable one... because mistakes were corrected when they were detected.

Now I will be much more weary about the content of Wikipedia pages since some people seems to use the encyclopedia to settle political struggles.

Your reaction to my contribution is really pitiful. Because I never participated before to any fruitless controversy I should not have the right to speak...

I was only giving my perception of the questions raised in your article since I am in a good position to watch the actual situation in France (I live there). You could make acceptable objections, saying for example that my objectivity is not guaranteed, but your reaction is only demonstrating your closed mindedness.

If you want to discuss only with the same 10 guys who are haunting the AFD since enough time to get your approval, I will leave you there. But let me tell you that this attitude is VERY DETRIMENTAL to Wikipedia's credibility. Jeemde 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: The proposal here was moved to talk, for greater readability. Thanks, Mackan79 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only hope that I don't belong to the same 10 guys who are haunting the AFD and to your the only thing which is interesting people here is allegation of Israel apartheid stereotype. I gave my reasons for weakkeeping this article based on British common law - the precedence - (end of the first section) - and these don't fit into your allegations. This is the English language Wikipedia, not some outfit for the Haaretz forum participants from Tel Aviv or for the Sorbonne islamism lovers from Paris to express their political views or ideas. In a matter of fact that VERY DETRIMENTAL Wikipedia of yours is trying hard to stick to the facts, and in this case to document the common opinion/s of others if they're notable, without giving any opinion itself. greg park avenue 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I fear this discussion has gotten diverted by a red herring. It is NOT about whether the apartheid analogy is just, or valid, or plausible, or whatever. I've posted what I hope is a helpful statement on the issue here, on the "centralized discussion" page.--G-Dett 18:21, 20 July 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.