Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid

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 was keep.--Wizardman 02:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Brazilian apartheid

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

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a biased collection of statements, few of which are notable (or even real allegations, per se). There's no way to make a real article out of this. Cúchullain ^t/c 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge changed to Keep back to Allegations of apartheid, the article is not long enough to deserve its own wikispace. --FateClub 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out it's a commonly used term in Brazil, based on real allegations, and used by all sorts of notable people. Moreover, the article has been considerably improved, and is already too long to be merged into anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per FateClub. --Dariusk 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any relevant content (if any) to other articles concerned. Baristarim 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The GFDL does not allow us to delete and merge. JoshuaZ 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Useless and hopelessly prejudicial article. metaspheres 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- many argue this today. Article needs works, but will improve.--Urthogie 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Allegations of apartheid has already been deleted, as have past "allegations of apartheid" articles. Just because someone says it doesn't mean the claim is notable, and it certainly doesn't make it true that the situation compares to what really happened in South Africa.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Michael Löwy, Cristovam Buarque, Mark Weisbrot, Tobias Hecht, and others who have used the term are all notable people. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient material for an article, and a theme that needs to be discussed seriously in human rights of Brazil articles and elsewhere rather than in an article which is centred on an occasionally used informal metaphor.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Social apartheid" is a common term for a specific kind of discrimination in Brazil, directed primarily at Afro-Brazilians, and rooted in former slavery. This article is the right place to discuss that seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No it isn't, Jayjg. Its an informal rhetorical term occasionally used in passing. The most common terms are "social inequality" or "income inequality" and related to articles such as Gini coefficient and List of countries by income equality etc. If this article was renamed Social inequality in Brazil, then we might be approaching some sort of encyclopedic approach.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking at the article as it stands now, do you still assert there is "insufficient material for an article"? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I still do, Jayjg. You've just quoted a few people at length who have simply used a metaphor in passing whilst referring to a complex issue, solely to ensure the article remains as part of some strategy involving Allegations of Israeli apartheid. That is not an encyclopedia article. The group of keep voters below, who largely edit Israel articles and whom I have never seen before on Latin American articles or African-diaspora articles, confirms that this is an attempt to distort and subvert the consensus process in order to continue a game, which you yourself admit is a violation of WP:POINT. The knock on effects, which are subverting and damaging unrelated subjects concerning race relations in Brazil, or articles such as Tourism in Cuba reveals that this game does not have wikipedia readers' best interests at heart.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tourism apartheid in cuba has been an article and significant subject for a long time, so I don't see how it relates to recent actions by Israel editors.--Urthogie 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it was written by Jayjg, so that's how it relates. And it was some of the same editors below who opposed its obvious merge into Tourism in Cuba for reasons to do with some WP:POINT game on an Israel article, not for the benefit of readers interested in Cuba.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it's important that the accusation of apartheid not be just the subject of an article for Israel. So it's more NPOV than POINT, in my view.--Urthogie 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Article lists notable accusations regarding a significant phenomenon in Brazil, and the Allegations of apartheid article is currently deleted. More material undoubtedly exists, and could be added to flesh out the stub, but we don't delete stubs simply because they are stubs. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the references, and added more material so that it's significantly less "stubby". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayjg. Also note that the main Allegations of apartheid is currently under DRV. JoshuaZ 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayjg, else merge to Allegations of apartheid, if it gets undeleted. --tickle me 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand this article. There seems to be very much material online alone. Tewfik^Talk 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if other Allegations of apartheid in X series are kept. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keepo - Fine references, but perhaps not presented correctly. Just needs improvement then. The Behnam 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if one set of allegations is notable, so should this. --Leifern 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, rename to Social inequality and Brazil and expand this much more meaningful topic. Because clearly, "apartheid" here is a political metaphor. The same division into rich and poor exists everywhere, with the accompanying territorial segregation of slums and palaces, of public and private scools, of street sweepers and lawyers. And the resulting social segregation (this is a standard term, not "apartheid") is but an insignificant part and the consequence of it. Mukadderat 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Jayjg ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep With a caveat: perhaps there could/should be a discussion about deleting all articles that deal with the subject of Allegations of Apartheid against X, but what we may not do is cherry-pick among them; that creates an inherent POV. IronDuke 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above and I agree with IronDuke, no cherry picking. Carlossuarez46 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Shamir1 05:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Irritated Keep in the interests of consistency; Allegations of Israeli Apartheid's validity as a keeper being no more compelling than this. Then maybe Allegations of Apartheid can be undeleted to contain the list. Gzuckier 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So basically, because some editors created an unencylopedic article about Israel, Israeli focussed editors are going around en masse and supporting equally unencyclopedic material on unrelated Latin American subjects to prove a point about consistency? This mass violation of WP:POINT should mean that the fake consensus of "keep" above is null and void.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How is trying to bring consistency to the encyclopedia a WP:POINT? If you disagree with this approach then perhaps you should take a larger interest in editing this series of articles.--Urthogie 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no "series of articles", they were a selection of disparate topics linked by wikipedia editors to make a point. There can be no consistency of response to issues concerning exclusive hotels and beaches in Cuba, economic disparity in Brazil and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They are entirely separate matters, linked only be one rhetorical word said in passing as part of a broad analysis. Considering that I have contributed to scores of articles that refer to race relations and economics in Latin America, its not really fair to demand that I begin editing this set of phoney articles which was created to make a point about a country in the middle east, and not to enlighten readers about Latin American disparities.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid actually seemed to have consensus for not deleting, though.--Urthogie 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The "consensus" in all these matters has been subverted and corrupted by the activities of Israel focussed editors, who are block voting to ensure that "Israel is not singled out", rather than having the interests of wikipedia readers in mind. This has to rank as the most transparent, depressing, and damaging effort to subvert content and the decision making process I have ever seen on wikipedia.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per Jayg Dsol 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JayG thewinchester 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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.