Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy

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. postdlf (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article seems to have been created as an extension of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid, listed in the "related afds" box to the right. It has many of the same flaws as that article (now deleted), in that it's both a coatrack and a synthesis of a small number of secondary sources. For this reason, the page should be deleted. CJCurrie (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, like Social apartheid in Brazil and like Israel and the apartheid analogy consists of a term, apartheid created in South Africa and now applied to a situation of formal legal and informal social discrimination being applied by academic and media commentators to a situation in another country. I see little difference between the two situations, or, indeed, between the two articles beyond the number of sources, but this article even as it now stands has more than sufficient sources to meet WP:N.I.Casaubon (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Further comment I should provide some context for the benefit of editors who are unfamiliar with this situation. This article is the latest development in the "apartheid" debates, which have a fairly long history on Wikipedia. These debates are basically centred around the page Israel and the apartheid analogy, which was created (under a different name) in 2006. There were several attempts to delete this page during the first two years of its history; I believe that many of these efforts were politically motivated, at least on the part of some participants. This notwithstanding, the page remained on the project and a consensus eventually developed that the subject was/is encyclopedic.
- Let me be very clear on this point: when I say that Israel and the apartheid analogy deals with a subject of encyclopedic merit, I am neither endorsing the analogy nor suggesting that the reality or non-reality of "Israeli apartheid" should be the standard by which the page's suitability is judged. Rather, the page has encyclopedic merit because there has been an extensive public debate on the subject. There are numerous volumes of academic literature on the subject, former Israeli cabinet ministers such as Yossi Sarid have endorsed the analogy, and Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid brought the debate into a much wider sphere of discourse. Today, it's unlikely that any serious contributor to Wikipedia would dispute the suitability of a page on this topic, whatever issues they may have with its current form.
- The same cannot be said for the page under discussion. Again, I must emphasize this point: when I say that Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy is not a subject of encyclopedic merit, I am neither rejecting the analogy nor suggesting that the reality or non-reality of "Palestinian apartheid" should be the standard by the page's suitability is judged. In evaluating this page, the only important question is whether or not there has been a sustained public discourse on "the Palestinian authority and the apartheid analogy," at least some of which must emanate from scholarly sources. The answer, quite plainly, is that no such discourse exists. Instead, the page "Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy" is simply a hodgepodge of recent journalism (some of which doesn't even reference the analogy at all as regards the Palestinian Authority, some of which which makes only passing reference, and some of which is taken from extremist sources).
- If a significant public discourse about "the Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy" does emerge at some point in the future, this page could be recreated. For now, however, there can be no justification for keeping it on the project. CJCurrie (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear example of WP:NeenerNeener over the Israel and the Apartheid Analogy article. Pointy original research. The difference between the systemic application of Israeli state power and the policies of therag-tag Palestinian authority seems obvious. This article is akin to something like Racism of American negro slaves attempting to be foisted to "make up" for an article on American slavery. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is not actually about the apartheid analogy in any way, and the sources are truly laughable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reality. The reality is that a lot of responsible people including Khaled Abu Toameh, Victor Davis Hanson, David Bedein and Alan Dershowitz describe the manner in which the Palestinian Authority treats certain disfavored groups as apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poor sourcing, trivial mentions in blogs that are about as pointy about name-dropping the a-bomb as the article creator is. An editor who should be taken before WP:AE at this point. honestly. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there may well be discrimination, this article is pretty much entirely synthesis. To justify its inclusion, we'd need to have some reliable sources attesting to the topic being one of general notability, rather than just some people apparently using the word "apartheid" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reads like a piece of propaganda. I see no easy fix without having to write literally the entire article all over again. Likeminas (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians have an obligation to apply the rules objectively' I am concerned that the standards, WP:N and WP:RS are being applied differently here than they are to Social apartheid in Brazil or to Israel and the apartheid analogy For example, Roscelese removed a paragraph from this article, but not from very simlilar articles on Brazil and Israel. To me, the five articles , Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Israel and Palestinian Authority share many similarities. I would like some of the editors voting to delete to explain why an article about Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy, where Ahmadi suffer formal, legal restrictions, is to be deleted, while the article about Brazil, where there is no legal inequality, was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin note - The above comment has been pasted to 3 AfDs, I have replied once here, to address this concern. Tarc (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like filling in your argument for you. What is your concern? Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psst...see that part of my post that's a different color, the one that says "here" ? Click it. Tarc (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. Temporary blue colorblindness? However, I have since seen the argument and answered it on another page....No, I won't make you surf. It is easy enough to copy/paste. "WP:WEIGHT is only relevant to article content; the linked explication of how it relates to other rules is a serviceable argument for keeping the article. There is no rule at all about what balance there should be between articles." Anarchangel (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of previous results has an awful lot of Keep votes on it. I venture to say that the result to Delete Accusations of Arab Apartheid looks a little shakier for it. I took the liberty of filling in missing information. Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another exercise in WP:POINT obviously aimed at the Israel and the apartheid analogy article. The difference is that this article is sourced entirely to op-eds. Clearly fails WP:V, WP:NOTE. Gatoclass (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Didn't we just go through this last week? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COATRACK is an essay. For the sake of argument, it also has not been shown. What POV is being hung here? WP:SYNTHESIS has not been shown. What two arguments in sources are being combined to make one argument in the article? As usual (true, dat), this is a policy regarding article content, not article subjects. Please see WP:DELETION#REASON. Just once. It won't hurt, I promise. If you insist on not doing so, I can sum it up for you; Non-notability: RS, V, N; Redundancy: FORK; Disruption: (COPYVIO, SPAM, VANDAL). Nothing about PoV. That's because PoV can be written out of any piece of prose. Anarchangel (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll repeat my argument from the Arab apartheid AfD: Israel and the apartheid analogy is a very bad article. It's unreadable and inaccurate and very likely to stay that way. The topic, however, does have a reasonable claim to notability. There's no such notability here. GabrielF (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An amalgamation of quotes does not a notable subject make.--Babank (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as yet another obvious POVFORK and violation of WP:SYNTH. I.Casaubon, the article's creator, really ought to be sanctioned for persisting with this pointless waste of everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what the problem with these misconceived articles is, so there is no excuse for creating more of them. Prioryman (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- User:I.CasaubonI.Casaubon (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- User:I.CasaubonI.Casaubon (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is an off-wiki effort to canvass editors here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that anyone involved in this afd or the underlying article is involved in the blog you link to? If not, you may want to modify your misleading comment. You cannot besmirch fellow editors with "canvassing" accusations because some dude decided to publish something on a blog. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask, BC, feel guilty? All Malik posted was a simple "here is a website that is soliciting votes" warning. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2011 (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.