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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual apartheid[edit]

Yes, it's Another Apartheid Afd. However, unlike Israeli apartheid, this one doesn't look at all like a widespread term. It says "Sexual Apartheid is a term used by some same-sex rights advocates", but the references don't back this up, as the three external links all refer to Peter Tatchell. So if this article was rewritten to fit its sources, it would say "Sexual Apartheid is a term that Peter Tatchell used a couple of times", and having articles on every political catchphrase under the sun would be unnecessary forking. Delete. Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is POV fork for many articles on this subject already in wikipedia. The only reason for this and several "apartheid" articles created by HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was to have the Dismabiguation page [1] in which HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can highlight the term "Israeli aparthide" in bold and hide the south africa era. All is part of an elborate scheme to make a WP:Point (while disrupting wkipedia) and turn wikipedia to what it is not. Zeq 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable term. It is interesting to observe that contrary to HOTR's view that "sexual apartheid" refers to LGBT issues, while "gender apartheid" refers to discrimination of women, the sources do not support it. For example, this Washington Post article[2] refers to discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia as "sexual apartheid". Pecher ^Talk 14:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic neologism. -- Heptor _talk 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Term coined by Paul Hoch in 1972. According to Google Books it is in fairly wide use in academic and other circles. Google shows 17,100 results. --Ian Pitchford 15:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad Googlum is the weakest argument possible. In fact, Google Books search does not establish the notability of the term or its meaning; extensive research using reliable sources is required to do either. The books where this phrase is found may use in various meaning, and Google search certainly says nothing as to how widely the term is accepted or whether there is any agreement regarding its meaning. Pecher ^Talk 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Google says nothing about whether there is any agreement regarding its meaning. The only hit I found for "Paul Hoch" "Sexual apartheid" speaks volumes: "Sports transcends social divisions and brings diverse people together --- with one important exception: routinely sport separates women from men. Paul Hoch coined the term "sexual apartheid" to describe this near-universal phenomenon." [3]. So right now Google is saying "this is a phrase people sometimes use to get a point across, and that point changes every single time someone different says it". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a term with many uses and an interesting history. Ideal for Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford 14:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone above. Just someone trying to prove a WP:POINT. -- Kicking222 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. HOTR obviously created this term so that he could justify creating a obviously pov disambiguation page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ian Pitchford. Homey 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic RenyD 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User's first edit was today.[4]
• Keep in widespread use in LGBT advocacy circles. Gerry Lynch 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it would seem that the point of these unencyclopedic articles, which blatantly violates WP:NOR, is to justify the disambiguation page, so that WP readers will see right away that the Afrikaaner "Apartheid" can refer equally to Israel or South Africa, which just isn't true. Wikipedia is being disrupted to make a partisan political point.Timothy Usher 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete not in common use Eluchil404 22:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is being disrupted to make a partisan political point. True -- by not in the way you are suggesting, and not by whom you are suggesting. Google Scholar gives 95 hits -- including journal-article titles -- and Google Books gives 77 books that use the term. Hell, Google News right now gives 4 hits. Obvious keep. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Just because someone makes an analogy to the real Apartheid doesn't make their analogy notable. BigDT 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to sexism sounds good to me. Wikt is where dictdefs go. Kotepho 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be legitimate scholarly use (per Calton above). Don't see any harm in keeping it. To vote delete it should be shown to be causing harm. The disambiguation page does not seem relevant. "having articles on every political catchphrase under the sun" that explains where the term came from, how it is used, whether it is in common use or just used by a few people, seems to be exactly what Wikipedia is good for. -- Samuel Wantman 07:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WLD 07:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. This WP:POINT is getting silly. Armon 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to homophobia or sexualism or somesuch, practically a synonym --Coroebus 15:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reluctantly For reasons stated by Zeq and Moshe, the obvious motivation behind the creation of this article (i.e. as part of the overall attack on Israel) persuades me that this article should not be kept at this time. "Reluctantly" (or "weakly" if you prefer) because I do not believe the phrase "sexual apartheid" (which to me, would mean a policy to keep gay etc. people separate from straight people) presents nearly the degree of difficulties that "Israeli apartheid" does. For one thing, "Israeli apartheid" is a specific, direct attack on Israel; it says right in the title that "apartheid" is being practiced by Israel. "Sexual apartheid" does not name a culprit. It implies that someone practices "sexual apartheid" but does not say who. Some might believe that "sexual apartheid" is practiced by all those who practice discrimination based on sexuality or those who express anomosity toward others based on their sexuality, though I think a strong argument could be made that they are not synonymous. All this is by way of saying that I do not think "sexual apartheid" is a hateful term, as "Israeli apartheid" obviously is. Sorry for the length of the comment, I just think this one is slightly more complicated. 6SJ7 16:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should be judging based on the merits or demerits of the article in question itself, not on what you think of other articles or what you think the motivation in creating the article is. Homey 16:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure I don't need you to be telling me what I should be doing, especially when you are the one who created these articles (gender/sexual/global apartheid) just so you could justify keeping a "disambiguation" page referring to "Israeli apartheid" and giving the latter equal billing with actual apartheid. 6SJ7 18:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that you've admitted you're not calling for deletion based on anything in the article itself but based on external factors I thought it prudent to advise you that you are supposed to be voting on the merits of the article, not because you're opposed to a completely different article. Israeli apartheid and apartheid (disambiguation) will stand or fall on their own merits, what happens to this article will have no bearing on that - so why take out your anger at Israeli apartheid on an innocent little article on a completely different topic? Homey 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Homey, let me ask you a question. Given that I was, by my count, at least the sixth person to refer to your reasons or motives for creating this article (including those who cited WP:POINT)while voting to delete, why I am the first one you choose to "advise" in this manner? I did not think of the argument myself, I am just agreeing with others. Am I being singled out for attention because I made the foolish mistake of acknowledging that I have reservations about my vote? Maybe the next time I won't be so foolish, but I would think that the expression of second thoughts is something Wikipedia would want to encourage in other to have a full and open discussion. I don't feel very encouraged right now. I probably should have just said "Delete per Zeq and Moshe," and then you wouldn't be bothering me. 6SJ7 19:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why? Because you express moral qualms about doing the wrong thing and were right to do so. Do you actually have any reason to vote delete based on the content of the article itself? Homey 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Homey, I asked you a question about why you are treating me differently from other editors. Are you going to answer that question? 6SJ7 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just did. Because you expressed moral qualms about doing the wrong thing by voting against the article. Homey 20:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reasons cited by users Ian Pitchford and Calton -- TheMightyQuill 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge - I could see sexual apartheid being merged with gender apartheid. --Ben Houston 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Heptor. gidonb 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep — agitprop term, but apparently widely-used per ghits. — RJH (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BigDT. Demonstrating that a phrase is commonly used and demonstrating that the phrase is notable are different things. Su-laine.yeo 02:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Apartheid(Modern Uses) or some such. I'd hate to see a bunch of minimally notable terms each having their own page. Ted 15:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this phrase is increasingly used particularly in light of the debate on Same Sex Marriage, gay rights and legal homophobia. fullsome prison 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable term. --Ezeu 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These afds are beginning to seem a tad vexacious. CJCurrie 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. It is indeed relevant. Pleas see WP:Point. Bertilvidet 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tewfik^Talk 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikitonary, if it's a phase that needs defining and not a concept, move it to the dictionary--Rayc 04:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Carlton. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough to me.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:14, 8 June 2006 (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.