Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 1 August 2007

Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid

• Articles for deletion/Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid

Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The term "Saudi Arabian apartheid" is not in common usage and only produces 296 hits on googleThis article is made up almost entirely of quotes and artificially blends two different concepts, treatment of religious minorities and sexual discrimination. Any useful information should be moved to Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia and Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. The article as it stands is a POV fork of those two articles. Lothar of the Hill People 19:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, nomination is frivolous. The only basis provided is a google test. Here are some other googles this user should have tried out on this verifiable subject:

• "Saudi apartheid"
• "saudi arabia's apartheid"
• "apartheid in saudi arabia"

The first two give hundreds of results, the third gives almost 5,000. also, consider that most articles dealing with saudi arabia's apartheid wont necessarily use the phrase in quotes. If a merge is being proposed, the appropriate place would be the article, not an AFD. --Urthogie 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Google was not the "only basis" for this AFD. You completely ignored the arguments that 1) article is almost entirely made up of quotes, 2)it artificially blends two completely distict concepts 3) it's a POV fork.

It's not that that I had only one basis for this deletion request, it's that you've only addressed one of the points I've raised and ignored the rest. Neat trick.

In any case, your google point falls apart when you actually look closely. Your first two google examples barely returned 500 hits between them. The results of the third"apartheid in saudi arabia" is not what you say it is. Look at the hits and you'll see what's actually being returned are referneces to "gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia", "sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia" or "religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia". As a stand-alone phrase "apartheid in Saudi Arabia" almost never comes up and that's because as a single concept it doesn't exist. Of these 5,000 hits I only found a few dozen if that that were for "Apartheid in Saudi Arabia" as a stand-alone phrase.

What you've done is taken two different ideas "gender apartheid" and "religous apartheid" and mashed them up so you could have "Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid". That's a completely unprofessional way to write an article. Lothar of the Hill People 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your remaining points apply equally well to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, which has survived AFD 5 times. That's why I ignored them. The Israeli article deals with allegations that there is apartheid only in the west bank (90% of the quotes), and allegations that there is apartheid in Israel itself (10% of the quotes). Your attempt to separate "gender apartheid in saudi arabia" from "religious apartheid in saudi arabia" will be just as successful as my failed attempt to distinguish between various types of israeli apartheid allegations. Also, almost all of that article is a quotefarm, a list of quotes.--Urthogie 00:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Since we're throwing up Google searches, how about this one. No reputable scholar has compared the two systems. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Urthogie Bigglove 03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates