Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan and the apartheid analogy

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan and the apartheid analogy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is full of mainly unsourced sweeping assertions. The few citations I have checked did not bear out the interpretation placed on them in the article. None of the sources used mentions the word "apartheid". The article was created by a single purpose account, which has not made any edits since, possibly as a pointy rejoinder to Israel and the apartheid analogy. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename There should be an article on Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan, if the information presented here is true, which covers all aspects in a neutral way. What's not needed is articles on arguments and analogies, whatever the country.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a section on Pakistan in the main article on Ahmadiyya. This includes much of the material in this article, better sourced and written in a much less POV tone. This could be expanded, and any useful material in this article could be included. RolandR (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename & Keep While the title is synthesis and inappropriate, the topic that it is presenting is notable. Mar4d (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - this needs a major re-write per WP:UGLY. It's filled with NPOV statements and high-context statements. It's interesting, to be sure, but it also violates WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:POINT. I'm not an expert on the issues involved, so don't look to me to rescue this horror. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the artlce does have notable details which can be expanded to suit the article Ahmadiyya in Pakistan Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename the plight of Ahmaddiyas in Pakistan is notable.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV stuff, bad title (essay-like), synthesis, et cetera. There is, of course, a place for what some might consider^{[weasel words]} to be part of what this article might want to treat: Ahmadiyya. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator points out, the sources do not even mention "apartheid", making the whole content original research and the article a WP:COATRACK for the topic "Ahmaddiya Muslims in Pakistan". That is a notable topic, but is already better covered at Ahmadiyya#Pakistan at substantially the same level of detail. A subarticle should only be created if there is more to say about this topic. Sandstein 07:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 07:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary source makes the apartheid analogy: examples of discrimination are just strung together by the author of the Wikipedia article, without even an attempt to compare it directly to South African apartheid. And so this article isn't even original research yet, which would still be unacceptable. Deletion is best option, because the content is not quality, organized, or plentiful enough for a rename. Quigley (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why on earth was this extended? The 3 calls for keeping were insipid "it's notable! with no no substance whatsoever. This is a poorly cobbled-together, pointy attempt to counterbalance the hated-in-certain-POV-circles Israel and the apartheid analogy article; the problem is, you can't simply stitch a few disparate events together and call it "Pakistani apartheid". The last time this stunt was pulled, it led to ArbCom, a row of AfDs, and the blocking or departure of a number of the perpetrators. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be the first time in my whole life that I've ever completely agreed with Tarc, but so help me, I do.—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You had me at "hello". Tarc (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Israel and the apartheid analogy" exists because people have compared Israel's actions to apartheid. This is not the case here. Words mean things. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 17 January 2011 (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.