Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona boycott


 * 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   no consensus. This is a bit of an odd case, but I'm not seeing a consensus for deletion. WP:MOSDAB does not seem to provide conclusive guidance here, and certainly there is a legitimate debate as to whether the guideline allows for this kind of a page or not. No one seems to be suggesting that the current situation is ideal, but there are different ideas about how to fix the problem (turning it into a full article, turning the linked-to subsections into full articles, redirecting, etc.). All of these options can be discussed further on the talk page and probably should be. One editor has already tried to essentially turn this into a tiny "list" article instead of a dab page so in a way what we have now is different than what was here when the AfD was opened. All in all there's too much going on here for an admin to close this as anything but no consensus, so folks will have to work out a solution among themselves (it should be pretty doable). Finally I would note that there does seem to be a consensus that "Arizona boycott" is a plausible search term which further militates against deletion at this time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Arizona boycott

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Inappropriate and unnecessary "disambig" against Arizona pointing to proclaimed "boycotts" that have no articles, and that were supposed responses to two events. CSD tagged as an attack piece, due to somewhat inflamatory name (IMHO) and lack of necessity, but was declined. It was only after I did the AfD did I learn the remover was not an administrator. Can think of no good reason to have this. We have no such attack pages against any other state, and no matter how stupid Arizona is being, I don't think we need on against it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to decline the speedy myself (I am an admin for anyone too lazy to check ;) ). There's nothing attacking anybody nor any negative unsourced statements of living persons. I agree the dab seems unnecessary, though. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary and violating WP:MOSDAB (because there are no articles about the two boycotts). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's a reasonably likely search term, and doesn't attack us at all. Maybe "list of Arizona boycotts" would be more appropriate, but forcing a "list" name when there are only two entries seems unreasonable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So why not Texas boycotts, Alaska boycotts, etc. Why only Arizona? Many states have been boycotted at one time or another. Probably all of them at this point. What makes these so highly notable and not just current news that makes them more worthy of being a "search term" than anything else, when we have no articles just on any one state's boycotts? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a completeness argument. List of boycotts is woefully incomplete, but if it was, this would still be a useful navigation aid.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as useful. WP:MOSDAB permits linking to named sections of other articles, from what I can see. Thparkth (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow the user to choose from a list of Wikipedia articles, usually when searching for a term that is ambiguous" - it is not intended to be purely a list of links to "sections" of articles. See also WP:DABNOT - "A disambiguation page is not a search index."-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I base my opinion on the inclusion of this section on anchor point linking in WP:MOSDAB. However, I see that it recommends using redirect pages to achieve this. Would you be happier with the article if this was done? Thparkth (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean creating intervening pages named things like Martin Luther King Day inspired boycott of Arizona and 2010 Immigration Law inspired boycott of Arizona housing the redirects, so that this article could then use those to house the redirects? That seems like process wonkery at it's peak.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thparkth (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because they still are not articles, and just making redirects to justify a disambig page is generally a reason to show the disambig page isn't needed. Wikipedia does have a search function for reason...-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Disambig page that doesnt even point to articles. WP:DDD--Savonneux (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless and until articles are written about the two events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everard Proudfoot (talk • contribs) 16:23, May 25, 2010


 * Keep (by disamb. article creator, as posted on the article's talk page):
 * I strongly disagree with AnmaFinotera's charge of "statements attacking people or groups of people". Clearly, the article does no such thing. It merely disambiguates between two very prominent boycotts of the state of Arizona, one current and one in the past. The article does not take a position on either of the boycotts, it merely serves to direct a reader to the one the reader is interested in, or to inform the reader that there is more than one.


 * I am not taking sides on the issue of whether the current boycott of Arizona is deserved or not. Although I added some obviously needed information about the large City of Los Angeles boycott at Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, I plan to add some new material I have discovered about counter-boycotts against Los Angeles and San Diego, among other locations.


 * To summarize, I strongly protest the suggestion that I am making "statements attacking people or groups of people" for merely including well documented, notable, encyclopedic information from reliable sources. If there are any further similar such statements on this issue by the same editor, I will consider them to be hostile and contrary to the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. Facts707 (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, there are many, many redirects and also disambig page entries that contain links to sections within articles, rather than to articles themselves. The argument that a disambig page entry links to a full article rather than a section in an article is weak at best. Facts707 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to list boycotts of Texas, Alaska, or any other place, industry, organization, person, etc. if that made sense. Searching for "Arizona boycott" in WP shows two prominent ones on the first results page, and they are both boycotts of the entire state, not just one city or for one industry. Doing the same for "Texas boycott" shows a list of many single boycotts of one particular thing, like grapes, lettuce, Campbell's soup, the 1965 American Football League All-star game, or the University of Texas School of Law, none of which seem to involve the whole state. Ditto for Alaska. Facts707 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Texas has been boycotted several times: This boycott got some traction if I remember correctly, but I'd have to do some research to find independent sourcing. It may be that constructing an article named List of state boycotts or somesuch and merging this into it is the best way to go.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the best practice would be to have an article on state boycotts, and a category of state boycotts. the articles linked to here could be included in the category, and i think each boycott event probably deserves its own article. If someone created two standalone articles, then this disambig would make more sense. While i dont really like this use, its pointing to a shortfall in our coverage of these events. i think that deleting this disambig may be correct in terms of strict adherence to manual of style, but avoids the issue of whether the events are adequately covered. and i think that this is a probable likely search term, and that these two need to be distinguished, and made easier to find by wp readers. i also dont see any evidence that this is in any way an attack on any person, group, or the state. these are simply notable events.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- definite potential for becoming well-sourced, and AfD is not cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * List of boycotts definitely needs work. It should have a section on international boycotts, then a section for boycotts by country, then within each country boycotts by state or city if any (preferable in reverse chronological order, i.e. latest first). Distinction between "consumer" or "political" boycotts should be made in Boycott, but not in List of boycotts, in my opinion, as some boycotts are both. Facts707 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how this is an attack page at all. It's a likely search term, and the city of LA boycott and tit-for-tat with Arizona on its own got more than enough coverage to create an article, so the "only links to sections" argument is wikilawyering at its best/worst. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 23:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral: looks more like a list of events than a disambiguation page, and I've recast it as such. No opinion of its keepability or deletability. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmph. I came here chomping at the bit wanting to !vote "keep", expecting an article about the current boycotts and both ready and willing to add dozens of reliable sources from major Mexican newspapers and magazines if that's what it needed.  But there is no article here, just a dab page, and, strongly as I might be personally opposed to what's been going on in Arizona, I cannot fail to recognize that this is POV-pushing, in that it is attempting to emphasize racist actions by the Arizona state government.  I detest unnecessary dab pages, and I like POV-pushing even less, so Redirect to Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.  No opposition to a complete rewrite as an article on that subject, by the way; I'd be more than happy to help if that's where we end up.  Heather (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, is anyone interested in starting a new centralised discussion somewhere about whether dab pages for deletion should be discussed at MfD, like redirects? Apologies if this has been discussed before (as it quite possibly has), I just don't remember it coming up in the past, and it would stand to reason, as these things are clearly not articles.  Heather (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look closely, you will see it is not just a "dab page", but in fact is a "disambiguation page", because there have been two prominent and notable boycotts with Arizona as the target, one current and one in the past. Thus the purpose of the page is to distinguish between the two. Facts707 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dab pages" and "disambiguation pages" are the same thing--see MOS:DAB. Also, neither of the links points to an actual article.  I picked the one that was closer to being one.  I'd really prefer to see this rewritten as an article on that subject, or redirected to it, with no objections to a hatnote pointing at the article-section on the earlier boycott. Heather (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the boycotts were/are justified or whether they were in response to "racist actions by the Arizona state government", this is just a disambig page and it does not take any position for or against. Thus I disagree with and protest your accusation of "POV-pushing". Facts707 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful search term, and there is no indication that WP:MOSDAB prohibits links to sections within articles. -- Pink Bull  06:43, 1 June 2010 (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.