Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona boycott (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Closed as a redirect already. Tone 21:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arizona boycott
Another proposed deletion of this article was closed on June 2 with a result of keep, no consensus with over 20 editors commenting. Relisting it so soon after the last AfD closed is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.Facts707 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a trivial list. It contains only 2 elements. RussianReversal (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How absurd. How is a list of two items any less useful or notable than a list with three or more items? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research, i.e. putting two things together to make a new topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How absurd. How can listing two boycotts of the same state together be "original research" and a "new topic"? If we listed "milk" and "cream" under "list of dairy products" would that be OR too? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unencyclopedic content, list which is too short in scope (see WP:SALAT), and impermissible content fork of Arizona. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How absurd. How is a list of two items "too short in scope" compared to a list with three or more items? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, what do you mean by "impermissible content fork of Arizona"? Do you mean that all content relating to Arizona should be navigable from the Arizona article? Does this apply to the United States article as well? If that is what you are suggesting, that is not only practically impossible but there is no such WP policy. Facts707 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is NOT encyclopedic.  Roundfile, please!  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 06:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How absurd. How is noting two prominent boycotts of a U.S. state "NOT encyclopedic"? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge info into List of boycotts, which is woefully inadequate, but the right place to list them. this solves the OR problem by not linking 2 boycotts just cause they are of the same state. list them all, sort out the bodies afterwards:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What you suggest would be useful, but that is a long term goal with no contributing editors at present. I'd be pleased if you were to take on such a task, but until there is a section in List of boycotts containing a "United States" section and subsection "Arizona", we have to leave this or something similar in. Doing otherwise would be going backwards and a disservice to our readers. Facts707 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as useful search term which breaks no policies. To address the 'delete' arguments above: 1. "putting two things together to make a new topic" is not an example of original research. It would be an example of synthesis if any conclusion was drawn which wasn't found in the original sources, but since this is just a list with no development of ideas at all, that clearly isn't the case. 2. I guess the WP:SALAT argument being made is that the list is "too specific". To me it seems that it is at a useful level of specificity. In addition WP:SALAT - as a guideline - may be overridden when it is useful to do so. 3. Not encyclopedic? See WP:UNENCYC. Thparkth (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This appears to be intended as a disamb type of page, and for that I can see its purpose. Is it better handled another way?  BTW, prior AfD closed as no consensus just a few days ago.--Milowent (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This started out as a disamb but during the previous AfD was changed to a list to counter the objection that disambs should technically point to articles, not sections within articles - even large and significant sections. Personally I think it should have remained a disamb. Thparkth (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that background. If you search "arizona boycott", after this page, you will not automatically find the two most prominent known boycotts that this article links to.  So I can see a reason for the page, but how to best accomplish navigation is a procedural task I am not going to get chuffed about.--Milowent (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The last nomination closed as a no consensus on June 2, a week ago, after the usual length of time for comments. There's no reason given to seek a different result now.  Mandsford 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. How ridiculous to hold another AFD just days after the first closed with over 20 contributing editors with no census! Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Would you call a list with two elements a list? Sounds more like a synthesis to me.RussianReversal (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not a synthesis at all. Its simply the fact that there are two different major news events in Arizona's history where the term "arizona boycott" has freely been used.  I take it that the article was created to help people find the one they are looking for.  See, e.g., Seven Years' War (disambiguation).--Milowent (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's their problem, not ours.RussianReversal (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Last I checked we were writing a wikipedia for readers, not for personal resume building.--Milowent (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How absurd. How is a list of two items any less useful or notable than a list with three or more items? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Ridiculous -- only two "boycotts"? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How absurd. How is a list of two items any less useful or notable than a list with three or more items? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

** CHANGED TO A REDIRECT ** I changed this page to be a redirect to Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act as per WP:Primary topic. The other known boycott was 23 years ago and is not nearly as well known. Changed by original creator of this article. This should resolve any questions of whether a list of 2 items is appropriate, etc. Facts707 (talk) 21:14, 11 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.