| Revision as of 13:57, 3 June 2006 editAngusmclellan (talk | contribs)64,067 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:35, 3 June 2006 edit undoTedE (talk | contribs)5,921 edits →[]: MergeNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. ] 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. ] 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. ] ] 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. ] ] 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' to ] or some such. I'd hate to see a bunch of minimally notable terms each having their own page. ] 15:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:35, 3 June 2006
Gender apartheid
Non-notable term and a POV-fork of sexism. It is interesting to observe that contrary to Homeontherange's view that "sexual apartheid" refers to LGBT issues, while "gender apartheid" refers to discrimination of women, the sources do not support it. For example, this Washington Post article refers to discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia as "sexual apartheid". In a nutshell, we have no reliable sources discussing the term and confirming its notability. Pecher 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sexual apartheid- Delete as nom. Pecher 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Double vote Pecher is also the nominator so his "vote" should not be counted a second time.Homey 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- First, please sign your comments; secondly, it's not a double vote, but an accepted way of showing the nominator's vote to facilitate counting. Closing admins are smart enough to figure that I'm the nominator, especially because I state it in the comment. Pecher 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's misleading. Closing admins know enough to start off by counting the nominator as a "delete".Homey 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Closing admins know enough how to count. Either way is fine. Stop the petty silliness. --64.229.225.229 15:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's misleading. Closing admins know enough to start off by counting the nominator as a "delete".Homey 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- First, please sign your comments; secondly, it's not a double vote, but an accepted way of showing the nominator's vote to facilitate counting. Closing admins are smart enough to figure that I'm the nominator, especially because I state it in the comment. Pecher 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Double vote Pecher is also the nominator so his "vote" should not be counted a second time.Homey 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Crap article by a user (who has been blocked from editing multiple times) trying to prove a WP:POINT. -- Kicking222 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Homeontherange 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)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary? Xyrael 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - term is used widely, see external links. Mover is presenting AFD to try to prove a point since he doesn't like the phrase Israeli apartheid. Article refers to both gender apartheid and sexual apartheid as synonyms but attempts to disambiguate between two differing meanings of the phrase "sexual apartheid". I would support moving this article to Sexual apartheid (gender) (in order to disambig from the LGBT meaning) if that will satisfy Pecher as per hiw Washington Post citation.Homey 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Jayjg 17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - same as sexism RenyD 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- By that argument the plight of women in Saudi Arabia today is no different from, say, that of women in the US in the 1950s. Homey 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, both are forms of Sexism RenyD 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Simplistic. Homey 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did you seriously attempt to compare the plight of women in the two countries across two different time periods? That's absurd. There's a sea of socio-policitical and even religious and economic differences in between the two. They're not comparable. --Strothra 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, both are forms of Sexism RenyD 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- By that argument the plight of women in Saudi Arabia today is no different from, say, that of women in the US in the 1950s. Homey 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I believe a case can be made for the term to be notable, however, I believe this article should be deleted because it's probable that it violates WP:POINT. That doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be cleaned up so that it established notability especially since I also feel that other editors may be close to violating WP:POINT in order to attack Homey and Homey's article creations. --Strothra 18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per above --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - article created as part of a scheme to make a WP:Point - disruptive. Zeq 20:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above BigDT 01:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to sexism sounds good to me. Wikt is where dictdefs go. Kotepho 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per all above.Timothy Usher 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep WLD 07:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - notable term --Pokipsy76 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:POINT. -- GWO
- Delete. per Pecher et al. Maybe redirect to sexism. Armon 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to sexism, seems like a synonym --Coroebus 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep-- TheMightyQuill 17:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep/Merge - I could see sexual apartheid being merged with gender apartheid. --Ben Houston 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The term is used widely in the literature - see Google Scholar and Google Books. --Ian Pitchford 18:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. gidonb 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Su-laine.yeo 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Apartheid(Modern Uses) or some such. I'd hate to see a bunch of minimally notable terms each having their own page. Ted 15:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)