| Revision as of 13:39, 4 August 2007 editG-Dett (talk | contribs)6,192 edits →[]: weak keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:41, 4 August 2007 edit undoG-Dett (talk | contribs)6,192 editsm →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Look, once it appears in the Brittannica it's sort of hard to argue that it's not well-referenced. ] 06:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. Look, once it appears in the Brittannica it's sort of hard to argue that it's not well-referenced. ] 06:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :And what is the Britannica article called? Surely not "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba"? Correct me if I'm wrong but the reference in Britannica is in a larger article about Tourism in Cuba which is precisely what a merge would do here. ] 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | :And what is the Britannica article called? Surely not "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba"? Correct me if I'm wrong but the reference in Britannica is in a larger article about Tourism in Cuba which is precisely what a merge would do here. ] 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Weak keep''' In its current state the article is just a quote farm, and strongly resembles the hoax articles in the hoax series "allegations of apartheid." But there are some indications that the phrase itself has notability, unlike the other articles which depend mostly on systematic and intentional misrepresentation of source materials and bloc-voting on spurious grounds in AfDs. It would be nice to see this article eased out of the hands of Middle-East-focused pranksters and into the hands of editors with an interest in and knowledge of the subject matter. If and when that happens, it should probably be renamed ], and leave it to the article itself to make clear that that's a contentious but popular vernacular phrase.--] 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Weak keep''' In its current state the article is just a quote farm, and strongly resembles the hoax articles in the hoax series "allegations of apartheid." But there are some indications that the phrase itself has notability, unlike the other articles which depend mostly on systematic and intentional misrepresentation of source materials and bloc-voting on spurious grounds in AfDs. It would be nice to see this article eased out of the hands of Middle-East-focused pranksters and into the hands of editors with '''a)''' an interest in and knowledge of the subject matter, and '''b)''' a track record of editorial honesty. If and when that happens, it should probably be renamed ], and leave it to the article itself to make clear that that's a contentious but popular vernacular phrase.--] 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:41, 4 August 2007
Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba
- Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
POV/Content fork of Tourism in Cuba. Merge other material to less POV-titled "Tourist segregation". Lothar of the Hill People 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Added comment giving this a less POV title such as Tourist segregation in Cuba might be considered as an option if there isn't a consensus to delete. Lothar of the Hill People 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or merge as a "Allegations of in " article Will 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to the Tourism in Cuba article.--JForget 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. A well referenced article about a broadly known phenomenon. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica talks about Cuba's "tourist apartheid". It is beyond me how a 13 month old article that was spun out from Allegations of apartheid could suddenly become a POVfork of Tourism in Cuba. It's also strange that the editor who created both the Social apartheid and Urban apartheid POVforks would now complain about POVforks and claim that the word "apartheid" is POV. Jayjg 06:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep a well referenced discussion. I sympathise, Will, with your rationale, but any problems with the titling etc. should be dealt with comprehensively among the entire series, and not piecemeal on just one or two. Tewfik 06:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- keepGzuckier 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - nom is frivolous, again. Misplaced Pages:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid is the place to deal with this. --tickle me 06:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - yep it's frivolous. <<-armon->> 10:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - well-documented allegation. Dubious nomination. --Leifern 10:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but rename Remove "tourist" from title. Amoruso 11:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - and speedy keep all future frivolous AFD from this nominator bent on disrupting WP. ←Humus sapiens 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Well documented. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep AfD is not how you solve editing disputes. Please see WP:APARTHEID. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Tewfik, tickle me and others; and my comments on the last few AfD's in this series. 6SJ7 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Jayjg. Jakew 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. If not, delete ALL similar articles. Have one rule for everything and enforce it. John Smith's 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. If not, delete all similar articles, as per John above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep A frivolous nomination of a well-referenced article. Beit Or 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to the Tourism in Cuba article. It doesnt need its own article, just a section within the main article. Title is POV, too.Giovanni33 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Look, once it appears in the Brittannica it's sort of hard to argue that it's not well-referenced. Nandesuka 06:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- And what is the Britannica article called? Surely not "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba"? Correct me if I'm wrong but the reference in Britannica is in a larger article about Tourism in Cuba which is precisely what a merge would do here. 63.164.145.85 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep In its current state the article is just a quote farm, and strongly resembles the hoax articles in the hoax series "allegations of apartheid." But there are some indications that the phrase itself has notability, unlike the other articles which depend mostly on systematic and intentional misrepresentation of source materials and bloc-voting on spurious grounds in AfDs. It would be nice to see this article eased out of the hands of Middle-East-focused pranksters and into the hands of editors with a) an interest in and knowledge of the subject matter, and b) a track record of editorial honesty. If and when that happens, it should probably be renamed Tourist apartheid in Cuba, and leave it to the article itself to make clear that that's a contentious but popular vernacular phrase.--G-Dett 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)