Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Australian 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Australian apartheid

Poorly sourced. One source merely warns of a potential new apartheid. Another looks at the influence Australia may have had on South African apatheid 55 years ago. Also, rather oddly named. —Ashley Y 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Ashley Y 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that notable information could be deleted within two days because it isn't well sourced enough. This is clearly notable article, because Australia's policies inspired those of South Africa-- this is in the historical record, too. Even if it was 55 years ago, it's notable for two reasons:

Encyclopedias are supposed to cover the past in just as much detail as the present, when it comes to politics.
The allegation is still used against Australian society today, even though it's blatantly false in my opinion. (this is comparible to the allegation of economic apartheid in the United States. to me it is blatantly false, but it is a politically notable accusation given the history involved.)

It is hypocrisy to delete this article and keep the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. So, because this is notable, the answer is to add to it, and source it, just like any other article. We shouldn't delete it because it stifles a potentially notable article from emerging. Keep.--Urthogie 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by Urthogie's comments, it seems the name is at least wrong. I'm not sure what the title of the article would be, but "Allegations of Australian apartheid" definitely seems odd, if this is basically a historical issue. I'm not sure what the sources are for any article though; I guess the question is whether a person should be able to make several articles and then say they'll source them later. My experience with article deletions is limited, so I don't really know. Weak Delete --Mackan79 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should vote for a move, then (something which is typically discussed on the talk page, not on the AFD).--Urthogie 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see where we'd move it. I think others are right that the material is already covered elsewhere. Mackan79 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to parent article - it's not that large as to be individually notable, because it's not that widespread an accusation (I'm sure there'd be more sources if it was widespread). Ga rr ie 00:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrie, it's two days old, this article.--Urthogie

Which is why I said merge it back to where it came from. Not Delete. It should have stayed at Allegations of apartheid until it was bursting out of it's little section - not popped over to a new article as soon as you found one real reference and two tangential ones. It was a stretch for me not to say something along the lines of what Cyberjunkie said below. It is interesting to claim that a country which at one time had forced miscegenation, might also be alleged to hold apartheid laws. Ga rr ie 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is covered better by White Australia policy. --Dhartung | Talk 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, biased article.--cj | talk 02:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have an article on the White Australia policy and Stolen Generation amongst others. We should use the names already in use by scholars and others in the country concerned rather than inappropriately use terms in use in another country. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 06:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peta, this is not a vote. Please give a reason. JRG 08:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a biased fork of the parent article. Lankiveil 09:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I wonder at some possible POV in the opinions that it doesn't matter because it was long ago. The stage to take a section into a new article is an editing consideration. I think that stubs are a good way to build articles, and the only reason for deleting this is if it were intended to remove allstubbs from WP. I do not think there is the least consensus on thatDGG 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that what's old doesn't matter but that the material should be discussed under a more accurate title, as it seems to already be. Mackan79 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolute nonsense; biased fork. michael ^talk 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) No real content in the article and (2) Pure rubbish, the Australian government is EXTREMELY supportive of the Aboriginal minority +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.