The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV Fork used in an effort to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:PointZeq 12:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is POV fork for many articles on this subject already in wikipedia. The only reason for this and several "apartheid" articles created by HOTR (talk ·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was to have the Dismabiguation page [1] in which HOTR (talk ·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) can highlight the term "Israeli apartheid" in bold and hide the South Africa era. All is part of an elborate scheme to make a WP:Point (while disrupting wkipedia) and turn wikipedia to what it is not. Zeq 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
double vote Zeq is also the nominator, his "vote" should only be counted once. Homey 19:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
question "this is POV fork for many articles on this subject already in wikipedia." Zeq, please tell us *which* articles Global apartheid is a POV fork for?Homey 02:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, two of the articles you claim this to be a POV fork of don't even exist. Makes me wonder whether you've even read the rest let alone whether you have any serious evidence that this article is a POV fork of the others. Homey 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They all exist (some via indiection) check again. Zeq 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They all exist - after you *deleted* one[2]. Homey 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure about the motives of the article's author, but the spurious creation of several articles with "apartheid" in their title does smack of WP:POINT. The article does not provide any sources discussing the notability of the term; therefore, it will be original research to conclude that the term is notable based on several sources using it. Pecher Talk 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term coined by Gernot Köhler in the 1970s and subject of an OUP book Global Apartheid: Refugees, Racism and the New World Order by Anthony H. Richmond (ISBN 0195410130). According to Google Books the term is used widely in academic circles and Google shows 79,500 results. --Ian Pitchford 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a "global apartheid(book)" in the =see also= section of apartheid.... Zeq 15:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reductio ad Googlum is the weakest argument possible. In fact, Google Books search does not establish the notability of the term or its meaning; extensive research is required to do either. The book where this phrase is found may: a) use this phrase in the meaning described in the article, b) use to refer to the global phenomenon of racial discrimination, c) use it in some other meaning, d) reference the book above, e) do something else with this phrase. All the possibilities are open here, and Google search certainly says nothing as to how widely the term is accepted. Pecher Talk 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are good arguments for an article discussing the use of the term. It will certainly be a new low for Wikipedia if an article is deleted simply because some object to the way related terms are used elsewhere, which we all know is the real motivation here. --Ian Pitchford 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not a place to discuss each and every two-word combination, as well as all the thousands of possible uses of such a combination. Pecher Talk 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. In an encyclopedia containing thousands of articles on porn stars, comic book, video game and cartoon characters we can afford to have a few articles on terms used by academics and others working in international development. --Ian Pitchford 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Porn stars, comic book, video game and cartoon characters are at least identifiable people or objects and are thus suitable for an encyclopedia, but random two-word combinations are not, even if used by some academics. Try searching Google Scholar for a completely innocuous phrase, like teaching experience; it gets 33,800 hits among scholarly papers. So, why not start an article on teaching experience? Because it is not useful in political advocacy, I'm afraid. Pecher Talk 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zeq and Pecher. -- Kicking222 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HOTR obviously created this term so that he could justify creating a obviously pov disambiguation page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MCHAS and Zeq. --Heptortalk 15:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep. This article is not more silly than those other Apartheid articles that were kept due to lack of consensus to delete them. --Heptortalk 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to sudden creation of all these apartheid articles. XyraelT 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep phrase recieves many hits and is being used by activists and academics. Mover doesn't like term "Israeli apartheid" so has decided to attack other articles to prove a point. Homey 16:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Cited article, verifiable research. I'm beginning to suspect a bad faith nom and a violation of WP:POINT but I hope that this is not the case. --Strothra 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accuastion is laughable. Creating this article was part of several realted articls all created to make a WP:Point about Israel. Zeq 20:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Zeq is one of those people who laughs when he's nervous about being caught being naughty.:) Homey 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not nurvous at all. Amused. My girl friend is calling me so have a good night. Zeq 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So nervous you can't even spell the word correctly on your second attempt. Homey 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homey, this was two brilliant kindergarden level insults! --Heptortalk 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I may retaliate on behalf of Zeq: "Zeq's got a girlfriend and you don't! Nah nah nah!". The latter statement of course presumes that you are not currently engaged in any adequatly advanced romantic relationships. --Heptortalk 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that that my adequately advanced romantic relationship isn't with Zeq's girlfriend! Ok, I think we've exausted the school age banter now:)Homey 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may want to wait for anyone else on the planet to request that immature insults cease, but then again you have seemed to mind looking like a hypocrite.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to spell check when my girl friend is calling ? No way. BTW, good morning, seesm like you never sleep. Zeq 03:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You are on different continents, so your relationship with Zeq's girlfriend would be limited to your imagination. --Heptortalk 11:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's why you nominated a well cited article. Besides, this article doesn't comment on Israel at all. --Strothra 02:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Well-sourced. Eluchil404 22:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Just because someone makes an analogy to the real Apartheid doesn't make their analogy notable. BigDT 01:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't understand why should it be deleted. --Pokipsy76 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeming attempt at a wp:point, and definite NPOV violation. Also, overusing apartheid in reference to these non-apartheids cheapens the real one. --tjstrf 08:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think some are looking at this in terms of the writer's intentions. Looking at the article in isolation, I think this somewhat notable term should be retained, but perhaps some NPOV tweaks to its wording would be handy. Barneyboo (Talk) 12:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and per Zeq and BigDT. Armon 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to neocolonialism or somesuch, if there really isn't anything else specifically addressing questions of structural biases in favour of the West then I'm gonna have to vote keep --Coroebus 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why, it seesm that people who look for neocolonialism will find it using the word "neocolonialism" and those who look for apartheid will find it is apartheid. Zeq 16:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well 'gobal apartheid' does seem to be a term that has been used to refer to this phenomenon, so I would vote keep, but since I'm not sure that it is significantly different as a concept from neocolonialism (and maybe there are other similar articles out there), I have gone for redirect. --Coroebus 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ben Houston 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not a dictionary of marginal political slogans. Sandstein 18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the term exists and is not a neologism (or very obscure), then Wikipedia should have an article on it. ዮም(Yom) | contribs • Talk 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now until the whole apartheid area can be fleshed out more. Come back later if it needs to be deleted in that light. Ted 03:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:POINT, POV fork, irremediably fails NPOV and probably not notable. Angus McLellan(Talk) 13:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this phrase is used increasingly in academic literature. fullsome prison 15:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable term. --Ezeu 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect--Are we discussing whether the subject of the article or the epithet itself is notable? The subject of this article is certainly notable but should be discussed under broader and neutrally-titled topics. As for the epithet, being used and being notable are not the same thing. Su-laine.yeo 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect--per above. TewfikTalk 01:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikitonary, then redirect or merged to the most appropriate artilce that it was forked from--Rayc 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Wiktionary as per Su-laine.yeo. This could never be more than a stub. It's a term, little more, and its presence as a full article is POV. Fearwig 05:04, 5 June 2006 (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.