Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid (disambiguation)

Apartheid (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)." We do not have a disambig on the word The that have The Age, The Bulletin, etc. This seems to apply here. The only true meaning of the word Apartheid is the article Apartheid. There is no way that somebody would refer to Israely apartheid or Sexual apartheid by the simple word apartheid. As such the disambig is useless and only fuels edit wars. Delete abakharev 05:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep if the guideline were followed in the manner suggested half the disambig pages on wikipedia would have to be deleted. Given the controversy at the original Apartheid page over listing other uses of the word (see Talk:Apartheid) having a seperate disambiguation page is the only solution to adequately deal with non-South African uses of the term apartheid. The problem with abakharev's examples is that "the" is not the operative word in his examples, apartheid is the operative word in the articles listed on Apartheid (disambiguation) Homey 06:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, we do not have Fascism (disambiguation) with links to Islamofascism, Fascist regime of Bush, etc. We do not have entries in Terrorist (disambiguation) for Terrorist Bin Laden or Terrorist Yassir Arafat, we have only links to a book and a film with the same name. If there exist an article on Apartheid (book) or Apartheid (painting) etc. then the disambig should be created. Just collecting articles on catchphrases there apartheid is used as a slur term is useless abakharev 06:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for the moment - it's a tricky one. For one, the main Apartheid article is the main article on the topic, and it is the topic that most would want to know about when looking up apartheid. However citing ground for deletion as being that apartied appears in the latter portion of a number of the articles' titles is clearly ridiculous. THE KING 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is *no* apartheid article at the moment. Because of the conflict last year over other uses of the term the article was moved to History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Hopefully, with the creation of Apartheid (disambiguation) the main South Africa article can move back to Apartheid.Homey 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should moving History of South Africa in the apartheid era to Apartheid depend on Apartheid (disambiguation)? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Homey. Even if slightly non-canonical in its status as a dab page, it's eminently useful in separating the primary from the secondary uses in a clean way without burdening the separate articles with unncessary controversy. Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I haven't looked into the troubled past of the main Apartheid article, but looking at the various "Foo apartheid" articles, I think there needs to be some list- or dab-like place that links to them all. I don't mind if it's in this form, or possibly as an appendix to the main Apartheid page, as long as the presentation clearly distinguishes between the primary, authentic meaning of the term and its various secondary polemical uses. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. We have a disambiguation page, for example, for "Georgia" becuase you might be talking about the Russian state, the US State, or the US University. Nobody is going to type in "apartheid" expecting an article on Israel. Further, I note that all of the new apartheid articles were created by the same user - User:Homeontherange. There is a danger here of POV pushing ... BigDT 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; clearly disambiguation guidelines and actual practice seem to have diverged, and probably should be reassessed, but bringing up individual articles piecemeal on AfD is not the way to go about that. Especially considering that the page in question has just gone through an unpleasant edit war regarding inclusion of various entries whose titles form part of the disambiguated term, and there was a strong consensus for retaining the entries. -- MCB 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one do have to start somewhere? This should set a presedent for other disambig articles that shouldn't be. -- Heptor _talk 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; An obvious attempt to introduce pov into a disambiguation page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del - Unencyclopedic. As some of us know, the Soviet propaganda generously used such epithets to besmirch their enemies. Since the collapse of the USSR, some pundits try to keep using the same terminology against their enemies. WP is not in the business to push POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is nothing to disambiguate here, and this disambiguation page is used solely for POV-pushing, giving undue prominence to murky phrases. Pecher ^Talk 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom notes, this is not really a disambiguation page, but rather an aggregation of uses of "apartheid", which as such is non-encyclopedic. Deletion will resolve the edit wars on whether or not to include articles of the type "Foo apartheid", which deal with usages of the term "apartheid" as applied to the situation in other countries. Whether or not these articles are encyclopedic is not at issue here, but at any rate there is no chance of confusion between these articles and Apartheid, and thus no dab page is needed. If necessary, they can be appropriately linked to from Apartheid. Sandstein 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I agree that if this page is kept as a disambiguation page, these "Foo apartheid" entries do belong on it, as long as they have an article of their own. Sandstein 07:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not really a disambiguation page, but rather an aggregation of uses of "apartheid" -- actually, that's pretty much the definition of a disambiguation page. Oh, the contention is mainly over Israel. Pro- and anti-Israeli editors: kindly keep your pathetic edit warring off AfD. -- GWO

Comment. The page also features "Sexual Apartheid", which, IMHO, is far more ridiculous than "Israeli Apartheid". In any case, if this pathetic page belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, AfD is the place. -- Heptor _talk 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Homey. --Qwertyca 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DAB. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A relevant term used in different contexts, should not be censored. Bertilvidet 09:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DAB. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I mentioned on the talk page, there is no real ambiguity - phrases like "Basque Apartheid", "Israeli Apartheid" or "Global Apartheid" the word "Apartheid" unambiguously refers to the South African regime. The word "Apartheid" is simply a derogative here - imagine the disambiguation page for "Stupidiy", starting with "Bush's stupidity", and ending with my uncle. -- Heptor _talk 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bingo - User:Heptor hits the nail on the head. BigDT 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Since the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the word is frequently used figuratively. But don't take my word for it: the Oxford English Dictionary says: "applied also to any similar movement elsewhere" -- GWO
    - Comment but that's the whole point - using the word figuratively doesn't mean that you have an article about every figurative use of the word. Everyone knows that apartheid means South Africa. Just because someone uses it as an analogy or metaphor to describe a current situation doesn't mean that you make an article about it. BigDT 14:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Everyone knows that apartheid means South Africa. -- Err, no. In fact. the OED disagrees with this assertion. They say it means South Africa, or policies similar to South Africa (i.e. laws that differentiate by race, skin colour or ethnicity). -- GWO
        That's exactly my point. "The word "Apartheid" may be applied to any [in the opinion of the speaker] similar movement elsewhere", just as the word "stupidity" may be applied to anyone the speaker considers to think bad or wrong. In both cases, the word is used as a derogative. -- Heptor _talk 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for support, BigDT. Also, in case anyone wondered - yes, my uncle's stupidity is quite notable. -- Heptor _talk 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please compare and contrast disambiguation pages like VT, Georgia, or Aaron's rod (disambiguation) with this one. Just as a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it, a disambiguation page isn't useful if you have to explain the link between the term being disambiguated and the things on the page. BigDT 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:DAB. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless at best, tendencious at worst. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep // Liftarn
Keep I don't think we need disambiguation page guidelines carved in stone and I think it's quite possible a person could confuse all these different apartheids and benefit from a disambiguation page. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one apartheid on the disambiguation page, and, as far as I know, only one event referred to as apartheid ever. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:35 UTC

Delete per nominator. Bidabadi 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; An obvious attempt to disrupt wikipedia. Whoever created the page or voting to keep it is engagaing in WP:Point this page only creates disruption to the editing process and confuse the reader Zeq 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per abakharev Tewfik^Talk 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a useless disambiguation page. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:35 UTC

Delete per Heptor and I can't wait to read the page about the notability of his uncle's stupidity. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it stays, based on the OED dicdef quoted above, we should add articles about Indian reservations, Ghettos, Holocaust, and all else that fits the definition. Just because of a catchy word. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is a PoV push. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep while I think the Israeli apartheid and apartheid wall articles should be deleted the other articles are fine and the disambiguation page is therefore needed. Fullsome prison 19:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]