Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of Danish items

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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this debate at the same time as Johnleemk, with the same result. I've undone my actions, but am making a note here to show that the merge is done. --D e ath phoenix 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott of Danish items[edit]

Where to start? First, as it is, it's a WP:NPOV violation, as it largely serves as one-stop-shopping for those wanting to know whose products to boycott as a result of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Second, it violates WP:V. Third, it's poorly written and already has a cleanup tag on it. Fourth, it's listcruft; there are only seven companies on the entire list. At the least, I believe it's a prime candidate for merging into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. (This has already been proposed, but the talk page is moving so fast that the merge discussion has already been moved to an archive page and thus will probably never reach a consensus.) At best, it should probably be deleted entirely. Aaron 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If consensus is reached, the redirect page Denmark boycott should be dealt with accordingly. --Aaron 01:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Boycott of Danish items and the redirect Denmark boycott. Wikipedia is not the place to push a POV agenda. Get a blog or spend the money for a webhost.--24.192.40.105 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one, IMO this is a possibly a candidate for Speedy Delete under A6 - Attack Page as it arguably encourages people to boycott certain named entirely innocent companies. Removal of the company names would turn it back into a reasonable article with some POV issues that would be regulated by the community. On balance this is a delete unless the company names are removed. ++Deiz 03:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be that this article is too specific and needs to be merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons; however, I do not believe that contributors to this article were necessarily pushing an agenda, even if the existence or contents of the article are judged to violate WP:NPOV. Personally, I understand "listcruft" to be a reason for deletion only when the article is a list, while this article merely includes one, along with a timeline, pictures, and an introduction/overview. It also appears to me that most of this article is verifiable, if not yet verified. Deletion or merging may still be the best options, though. Participants in the boycott and the "Buy Danish" (makes me hungry) counter-boycott campaign will probably consult List of Danish companies, so this article is unnecessary and inferior from the point of view of somebody pushing an agenda regarding Denmark. In response to Deiz: I don't think it is an attack page, it does not appear to encourage the boycott, and removing relevant factual information from an article is not a good idea. --Joel7687 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it isn't purely an attack so not an A6 but not fair on the named companies either, as you say people can check out the full list of Danish companies. IMO the list should be replaced with that link sooner rather than later. ++Deiz 04:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep with extra danish cheese - What's wrong with this? I saw this as part of the story of the national news tonight. We can have a NPOV while reporting on a movement with a POV.--God of War 06:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiNews. The Baroness
Strong keep This is an unfolding event, let's wait and see what happens before zapping it. Ruby 06:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's about a notable current event. I've seen it mentioned in every Finnish newspaper I've read. JIP | Talk 07:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article since this is just a part of this story and that article has a section on the boycott already. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I am concerned about listing the companies affected, as that seems to support the boycott. If some Danish companies are not on the list, then it tends to favor them. Logophile 10:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. The event is certainly notable, and one can quite easily write a well-referenced article that will meet WP articlespace policy. However, the correct page is Jyllands-Posten muhamad cartoons. Sjakkalle's suggestion is the natural one; I'm asking for a merge & delete because I think this page is not a good redirect. I disagree with Logophile and Joel that listing the companies lends "support" to the boycott: the encyclopedia neither supports nor opposes. It reports, and is neutral. ENCEPHALON 11:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. A possible search term for the current event. MLA 12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete. I am already on the record as supporting such; much but not all of the content is contained in the larger article. Verifiability is an issue of obtaining appropriate sources (which, I agree, this article lacks). The list of companies itself can probably go. However, I entirely disagree with the assertion that a list of Danish companies and the declaration of a fact of a boycott is POV. --Stlemur 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article about the cartoon controversy if it's not already covered there. There is a huge difference between calling for a boycott and a boycott that is successful in attaining some goal. It is not likely that this will seriously impact these Danish companies in such a way that causes some change. If that happens, the boycott itself is more worth an article. Peyna 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If someone reads this list and decides to boycott these companies, then we are supporting the boycott--albeit inadvertantly. And if someone boycotts these companies after reading about them here, but doesn't boycott other Danish companies, then we are inadvertantly favoring some and protecting others. Logophile 10:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just realized something that may prove this page to be unchangably listcruftian and inaccurate in its current form: The seven companies listed in the article were apparently picked at random by one or more editors, based solely on whether or not the companies' products were mentioned as examples in the news articles listed as references on the article page. But the boycott is not against these seven companies; it's against all Danish products. It's as if someone started a boycott against all products made in Japan, and then a WP article was created listing Sony and Toyota as the sole targets of the boycott because those were the only two companies the article's creator could think of at the time. That's simply dead wrong information. I won't vote again since I nominated the article, but this point should be taken into consideration. --Aaron 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep preferable than Merging it into the cartoon's article which has a size of 60 kilobytes already. Much longer than suggested. --Vizcarra 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that making it a separate entry is a POV-like promotion of Islamic fundamentalists. --rydel 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. --Stlemur 18:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vizcarra. The list of companies has been removed from the page, which should satisfy some of the delete reasons above. Turnstep 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the size of the cartoon article. Perhaps should be renamed as Mohammad cartoons boycott to make the context clearer. The article now has references and illustrations so is in reasonable shape. Has real potential to be an ongoing issue in foreign and trade relations ie World Trade Organisation. Capitalistroadster 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The illustrations are probable copyvios and awaiting deletion, for what it's worth. The article now consists of a single paragraph somewhat duplicative of its sort-of-parent article, along with a timeline of events which seems to be of limited value. If it's going to be kept, it ought to be greatly expanded into something about the economic and social ramifications of the boycott itself. --Aaron 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor part of the subject/badly motivated. Golfcam 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A useful article documenting why this boycott happened, how well it fared, and what the long lasting effects of it were could be written someday. This is not yet the time and it's just listcruft. I think I'm going to go play with my LEGO now. ++Lar: t/c 09:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this "listcruft"? The list had been removed well before you cast your vote. Turnstep 17:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 20:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Stifle 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, although somehow I don't think the kind of people who boycott Denmark spend much time looking at Wikipedia... --Agamemnon2 12:46, 6 February 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.