Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott Scotland


 * 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. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Boycott Scotland

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Clearly a non neutral website therefore breaches WP terms for inclusion of a web site. Is also a "bedroom" campaign and it has had no significant impact and is unlikely to have therefore it is not qualified as a full article. It should have at best a one line entry into the Al Megrahi release article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - ah, the website may not be neutral but the article is. Notability is asserted and is supported by appropriate references. Crafty (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) That's no reason for deletion, WP:NPOV doesn't extend to topics not being allowed to be non-neutral. They are what they are. As long as the reliable sources discussing the topic are neutral, and the discussion is significant enough, it should be included in the encyclopedia. However, I'm not really sure that page has the long-term notability that I'm looking for. A merge into Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi could be considered, but for other reasons than in the nomination. Amalthea  21:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not satisfied that the article is neutral. The boycott has received significant coverage in the UK, much of it derisive. Some coverage of those objections would be required for neutrality however this is fixable and not a reason to delete. I am also inclined to support a merge, as suggested by Amalthea, for two reasons:
 * It ties the boycott to the thing it is protesting about, distinguishing it from people boycotting Scotland for other reasons. Given that people are always boycotting something or other, this might be beneficial. Next week there might be a completely different "Boycott Scotland" campaign complaining about cruelty to haggis, or something.
 * While the website is notable, given the Telegraph coverage, I am not 100% convinced that this anonymous website is necessarily the true epicentre of the boycott campaign. The boycott needs to be covered more generally.
 * My second choice after "merge" would be "keep" . --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my second choice of "keep". I don't think there is enough for an article although I still think it is notable enough to be merged provided it is covered in a more neutral way. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The fact that there is a move to boycott Scotland is notable.  The fact that there is a website which is not even mentioned in half of the links on the page it is purported to be about shows no notability of the website.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added seven links: The Wall Street Journal, The Times, CNN, The Telegraph, Irish Examiner, Voice of Russia, The Herald, all mentioning the website and the boycott. The Ghost Army (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I feel that the article name is in some way not NPOV but I can't immediately think of an improvement ("2009 Boycott of Scotland?").  I would also support a merge into one of the articles surrounding the Pan Am bombing and the prisoner in question. Merge into Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - the article content is notable but not capable of sustaining its own page.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There are more than enough sources available online to warrant its own article. Equal Progress (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is timely and it is a current event surrounding the release of Al Megrahi. Was the article "Freedom Fries" deleted in 2003 just because a couple of Frenchmen took offense? No it was not. Likewise, the American people are boycotting Scotland. Therefore, the event is significant enough to be encyclopedic as it has been reported in the global media around the world. The article should be kept. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is written in NPOV obviously and well balanced. Likewise, the term Boycott Scotland is well known in both the United States and Scotland. For those who think the article should be deleted, by that token, the article Freedom Fries and Cheese-eating surrender monkeys should be deleted too since the term went out of favour in the mid 2000s. Like a previous poster said, this is a timely topic. We can only surmise at this point in time whether or not the boycott will be lasting or not hold. Until then, all talk of deletion is premature. I'd give it six months to a year until tangible results can be seen in the effectiveness of the boycott. If ineffective, then I would give it consideration at that time to delete or merge into the Release of Al Megrahi article. --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles are supposed to appear on Wikipedia after they become notable, not before. See WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is about a website that is obviously notable (the website itself lists news articles about it at http://www.boycottscotland.com/campaign.html as well as through a regular Google news search) and as the principal author of this article, I tried my best to keep it neutral. Despite that, the user nominating for deletion (CloudSurferUK) has made personal attacks and baseless accusations against me simply because I oppose the inclusion of a non-notable and non-neutral pro-conspiracy website on the external links for Pan Am Flight 103, which makes this deletion attempt a revenge response. The article as it stands is very neutral and balanced, with plenty of room for additional expansion, though hopefully it won't turn into a mess because some people are biased in favor or against. Equal Progress (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is also clear that it is about a particular website, which fulfills the Wikipedia notability requirements given the extensive news coverage of the website itself in the London Times, Telegraph, CNN, Le Figaro, and more (all of which is easily found through a simple Google search). Equal Progress (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The press coverage has been laughable, the campaign is a non-notable "bedroom" campaign, It has little to no following, the owner has been mailing its few subscribers to keep it on Wikipedia, It shows clear bias, has no basis in fact and has no real support from any serious body. It also makes no mention of the fact that the majority of press coverage has been derogatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to stop making baseless accusations against other Wikipedia editors and maintain a civil tone per WP:NPA. Equal Progress (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a personal attack against an editor here? Pointing out off-site canvassing is relevant, but of course will have to be backed up by forwarding such an e-mail to the closing admin if requested, and if it becomes evident here. Amalthea  11:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusing other editors of off-site canvassing without evidence is abusive, among the other accusations CloudSurfer has made on this page and at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103. Equal Progress (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CloudSurferUK - your passion is appreciated - please see WP:POLE. At the moment the article features multiple citations from sources generally held to be both significant and reliable.  If you feel the article doesn't represent the full story, please introduce additional citations supporting your assertions above.  It's through the inclusion of multiple dissenting viewpoints that we make Wikipedia better, not through their mutual non-inclusion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with a small merge into megrahi release article but this is not worthy of its own article. I will be more than happy to supply an email backing up claims of off-site canvassing, in fact I could publish it and link to it from the Boycott Scotland Page. Nick Harding (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above user is CloudSurferUK. If you have any emails backing up your allegations, you would need to forward a complete copy of the email with headers to a Wikipedia administrator so that they can examine its authenticity. Equal Progress (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick Harding /Cloud Surfer, please see WP:Anything to declare? Thank you. The Ghost Army (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I am CloudSurferUK and this not a multiple account its called setting Signature preferences in my account! So no, nothing to declare.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The coverage by various significant international media outlets would seem to indicate that the website "Boycott Scotland" was notable and newsworthy in and of itself. Whether the coverage was in support of the website or against it shouldn't determine the importance of the article. As matter of fact, considering the amount of debate in evidence on the internet, and in the media, solely devoted to the website itself, as well as the coverage of the 'real world' effects it has had thus far, I would not support merging it with another article, since it is important enough to retain as an article unto itself.The Ghost Army (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. There has been quite a lot of coverage of this website, but all of the coverage is tied up with a single event, and I can't see the coverage continuing once the backlash to the release has died down. I don't see any problem with the neutrality issue though. If merging is not an option, my preference would be to keep. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete At most, this rates a mention in the article about the release of the Pan Am bomber. Calling for a boycott is not significant.  If a boycott makes a noticeable difference (and most of them never do) that's significant.  In the news now, but it won't be noticed a couple of weeks from now.  At most, it will be summed up in an almanac in one sentence "There were protests, and including calls for products of Scotland to be boycotted".  Yawn, boring, not encyclopedic, move on. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It apparently made enough of a difference to get officials in the Scottish government to respond to it, not to mention all the international coverage and additional political fall out. That's more than significant for it to have its own article. The sources can't be ignored. Equal Progress (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Alex Salmond responded by calling it an "online rant" hardly a notable response, its not like it was debated in parliment!, and scottish business have seen no effect, nor do they expect any, It also has not been in the news since. As Mandsford said, it will be forgotten about in a few months anyway. It's worthy as a merge into megrahi release article, nothing more. CloudSurferUK (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I very much doubt it will be forgotten when the events of the entire year are summed up, considering it was among the most visible and notable reactions of Americans to the release of the prisoner. If one wanted to describe the reactions of Americans to the release, one would first and foremost have to mention the boycott. Actually, it received more media coverage than the reactions of some American politicians. I also think it will be considered notable in Scotland's retelling of the events surrounding the release, since the boycott outraged so many Scottish people, and they spoke out against it frequently, and at length, in comments to newspapers, on forums, in blogs, and in articles in the media. To delete the article is also to delete their response to the boycott. I think it has the significance to merit its own article since it has been written about as an event in itself. As well, we can't yet know the further ramifications of the event. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mandsford. At best it could be merged to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi as a one liner. It's only significant if it can be shown to have been successful in some way. I wonder how many websites there are calling for the boycotting of Israel/US/UK/Denmark etc. etc. Ben   Mac  Dui  17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles normally appear in Wikipedia after the ramifications are known, not before. See WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, yes, that's true, however in this instance the article is about a website so ramifications are, as the nature of the internet dictates, ensuing and ongoing, as well as being known. The only foreseeable end to future ramifications is if the website is taken down. If this article is removed so, too, should the article about the release of the Lockerbie bomber, since future ramifications of this action are also still unknown as well. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bomberharris (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) — Bomberharris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Non-encyclopeadic content that is selective and partisan.
 * Note to closing admin: Bomberharris only has a few edits. Equal Progress (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether Bomberharris has only a few edits is not relevant to the argument. Boycott Scotland should feature as (at best) an inclusion into the megrahi release. Whilst it has found favour with a few americans, it has had alot of negative publicity in the UK and rest of the world. and when its all said and done, it is, and always will be a "bedroom" campaign so how can that be worthy of a full article on Wikipedia? CloudSurferUK (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bomberharris, it isn't a selective and partisan article. Five different editors have been discussing it on the discussion page and are very conscious of the fact that the article must remain entirely neutral.If you have material that you feel would make it more balanced, please do feel free to add it to the article. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is a neutrality problem here. The campaign has had a lot of negative attention in the UK and none of the obvious objections to such a silly campaign are included. Of course, this is curable and not a reason to delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Daniel, your point is taken. If you could offer links to some negative media coverage that could be added into the article it would be very much appreciated. I have looked but have so far only found opinion-based blogs and the like. Thanks! 76.69.90.43 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Media coverage of AfD debate - Y'all have seen this? Telegraph - Wikipedia: 20 articles earmarked for deletion Welcome to the least exciting five minutes of fame ever. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's quite good coverage. It captures the flavour of what we do on AfD well without getting readers bogged down in understanding our detailed policies. It doesn't make us out to be control freaks or play on the lazy meme of Wikipedia being a willing home to random nonsense. (BTW, I have fixed the link.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is excellent coverage. Nothing like a good AfD to help get a Wikipedia article in the news and get more people interested in editing. Equal Progress (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep due to bad rationale for nomination, Clearly a non neutral website therefore breaches WP terms for inclusion of a web site. That doesn't sound like any Wikipedia policy to me.  It does sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT though.  Keep due to press coverage as Dust pointed out above. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Thoroughly and utterly non-notable. Vandagard (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out here that the original nomination for deletion by CloudsurferUK is based on the premise that the website, the topic of the article, is non-neutral, and not the article itself, as Squidfryerchef has noted. I'd also like to point out that those in favour of deletion include a person with few edits, and a person using two different names, and that false accusations of off-site canvassing were made on 29 September that have not been backed up, as of 3 October. This strains the credulity of the argument for deletion.The Ghost Army (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. We have been invited to decide whether the article should be deleted and we should consider all possible reasons for and against this, not just the ones given in the (very poor) deletion rationale. A poor rationale is a bad start to an AfD but it doesn't have to ruin it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note I have not used two names, check above, it was changing signature preferences. Stop trying to find weak faults in the argument. The consensus is clearly in favour of deletion or merge into main al megrahi release article and nothing more. This is a debate and that is whats happening. CloudSurferUK (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Advocacy contrary to WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't advocate a position on the website pro or con, so WP:NOPE. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:COATRACK on which to hang WP:LINKSPAM. No thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except there's no "coatrack" and no linkspam. Just an NPOV article describing the organization, and the external links are all either news stories about the boycott itself ( which should be converted to footnotes ), news stories about the release ( which can be taken out ), or to the website itself.  No spam here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - I'm not yet convinced long-term notability has been established here. Deletion would also be an option, but I think at least a mention in that article might be justified. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per most of the arguments above, or else delete per Col Warden. --John (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is well-sourced and complies with all WP guidelines. It was checked and had input from those of us over at RSN.  I understand why some may have a problem with an article about a single protest website, but we leave it up to coverage in reliable sources to decide notability, which we have.  The only possible outcomes are keep or merge, not delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That's strange! I make it: Keep x 5; Merge x 2; Merge/Keep x 1; Merge/Delete x 1; Delete x 7 = 8 each side! Vandagard (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. It is the quality of the arguments and the ability to build consensus that matter, not the numbers on each side. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * so if the the majority want it deleted or merged then it wont be? Its a debate Daniel hence the majority rules. by proxy yes it is a vote. CloudSurferUK (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WIkipedia is not a democracy. The number of "votes" does not determine the results, it's the quality of the argument.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:Rough consensus. Amalthea  08:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment You can't base notability on 24-48 hours worth of media jumping on the bandwagon with a global event. Notability of a Boycott can only come from whether it has any impact or not and Boycott Scotland has had no impact at all. Also the protest claims to be backed by the american victims of pan am 103 whilst no mention of it at all is made on the VPAF103 website so support is either unacknowledged or not there at all. CloudSurferUK (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd agree that I can see why this might be suitable for deletion. Nobody seems to be noticing any effects (although how you'd detect a consumer boycott during a recession's a good question anyway). Apart from one of the Scottish governments political enemies trying to revive it via his tweed company in September,  it faded away from the media in August. As regards notability, the empty Scottish and British media can be quickly filled with any old non-story during the August "silly season", so it would be easy to find lots of news sources reporting this -especially as they're none too sympathetic to the Scottish government anyway. Zagubov (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just added a mention of the parody sites and a Twitter campaign denouncing the boycott, as reported in The Guardian. This is all I have been able to find in notable media sources referring to the negative press that has been mentioned in this discussion, but hopefully it will help to enhance the neutrality that some have said they thought was previously lacking. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one case of an article about a subject noteworthy and notable enough to keep. This was a huge sensation in the British media and made waves all around with everyone talking about it, and enough of a reaction to have European trade associations react to it, as well as a Scottish trade assocation take down its website as a result of the website. Those who oppose this website's inclusion in Wikipedia appear to be suffering from a definite case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is very sad, because Wikipedia is above and beyond such concerns. The article in question is most certainly neutral, very well sourced, and there are abundant, abundant sources to confirm the website's notability. Metaspheres (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a lot of people seem to be mixing up the reaction to the release with this particular website. The reaction to the release of the Lockerbie bomber was undoubtedly huge - I am far from convinced that it was all down to this one website. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I see it the bottom line is this, for a Boycott Campaign to be "notable" surely it must A) have a signifanct impact, it hasn't, and B)receieve regular press coverage, it did a one or two days now its forgotten about. This was a knee jerk reaction with very little support(it isnt even worthy of a mention on the VPAF103 site, has received a little, but not large support in America, let alone the rest of the world. An entry into the megrahi release reation, nothing more. CloudSurferUK (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep A non-neutral website can certainly be appropriate for coverage by an article; but in any case this article is about the campaign, and only incidentally about the site.  the question is whether this is significant, and there seem to be enough 3rd party sources to show that it is. But I see nothing in the news since early September, and unless there is renewed interest I think it would probably be better to merge. I am not sure about the neutrality of the article, which seems to assume that the release was wrong, & the only question was whether or not Scotland should be boycotted because of it. Obviously this can be balanced, but it would be easier to do so in the merged article.        DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi The prisoner release and the American official reaction were notable, and the article seems neutral. The bit I don’t get is how the website’s notable. It pops up anonymously and campaigns against the SNP government and, sure, it then gets reported in Britain’s mainly anti-SNP newspapers at a time when there's no other news to report. But after a few days, nobody can find any reliable effects they can attribute to it - the story dies. The SNP’s rivals tried to revive the issue in mid-September but it was quickly revealed to be a politically-planted news item. The Scottish/British media are so hostile to the current SNP government that they’d love a real boycott that they could blame on Salmond, MacAskill et al. The fact the press have nothing more to say about it is the real dog that didn’t bark in the night here. Zagubov (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge -To something more general as has been done for other boycott insert country here websites, some of which, from checking google, appear to have considerably more public support, popularity and mentions in the media than this particular one has. I'm not confortable with the fact that the creator of the article is a single purpose account which raises questions regarding the purpose of the article. If the editor is connected with the website then it should probably be deleted as advertising. If he is not then merging with a relevant article is preferable. Wayne (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to be confusing the website with the political action. Whether or not the actual boycott is notable has no bearing on whether or not this website is notable.  Changing this to Boycott of Scotland due to the release of Libyan terrorist or some such title might be appropriate.  Claiming that this one particular website is notable is a bit of a stretch.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2009 (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.