Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)

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

The result was Speedy keep, obviously unanimous that this should be cleaned up and not deleted. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid[edit]

The article Allegations of Islamic apartheid is now up for deletion here. It is very POV pushing to delete that article, but not delete this article as well, so I am putting this article up for deletion Sefringle^Talk 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I disagree with your assertion that the two articles are analogous; I think they're quite different. Islamic apartheid is roughly one-fifth the size of this article, it doesn't present the range of views that this article does, and it hasn't already survived five deletion nominations. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is different because of article size and amount of Afd's? Not much real difference here in terms of topics. The only real difference I can see bewteen the two is one is accuses a country the other accuses a religion. Somehow it is OK to accuse a country of apartheid but not a religion?--Sefringle^Talk 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether it's "OK" to accuse a country or a religion of apartheid. I think the question is whether there's enough "meat" to warrant its continued existence as a separate article. Looking at Islamic apartheid, Criticism of Islam#Discrimination against women, and Criticism of Islam#Discrimination against non-Muslims, I don't see enough information to justify two articles. Another difference, as I wrote, is that this article is balanced — roughly half of it rebuts the apartheid allegations — while Islamic apartheid is entirely one-sided (despite the fig-leaf inclusion of "allegations" in its name). And yes, I think the fact that this article has already survived five nominations is relevant: how many bites at the apple are appropriate? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Appears to be WP:POINT pushing. Morgan Wick 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said in the other discussion, "Israeli apartheid" gets over 210,000 ghits; it is a widely used term in discussions of Israeli treatment of Arab populations. Whether you agree with the comparison with South Africa or not, there are definitely people using the term. Brianyoumans 05:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a notable term, and this appears to be a pointy nomination. --Haemo 05:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Pretty much a dictionary violation of WP:POINT. If you don't like the way things are going at the Islam deletion, bring it up over there (that includes Deletion Review if you ever cross that bridge). I'd say you could nominate this article per precedent after the other one gets deleted, if it does. Shalom ^Hello 05:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bad nomination. The Behnam 06:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which of the criteria for deletion is being alleged to apply here? Sefringle appears to have some form, as I see last month he proposed deletion of "Zionism and RAcism allegations" Zoomatters 12:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-per Malik Shabazz ChrisLamb 13:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Were I bolder, I would question the bone fides of this nomination. As it is, the article has merit, and my understadning is that one is not supposed to argue along the basis of whether or not other articles ought to be deleted. -- Simon Cursitor 14:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - We've been through this five times already. Requesting another AfD is WP:POINT. --John Nagle 16:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fuck you bastards --Java7837 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was uncalled for. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.