- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 05:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Boycott Chinese products
- Boycott Chinese products ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It would be very possible to write a long, substantial and well-referenced article about the substantive reasons why campaigns are organized to boycott Chinese products — but that's not what this article, as written, is. Rather, it's just a stub which defines "boycott Chinese products" as a term, meaning a boycott of products that come from China (how enlightening and informative!), with unreferenced POV asides like "The main reason of boycotting is Chinese products have poor quality and fake." In this form, it doesn't even provide enough substance to escape being a simple WP:DICDEF — and for that matter, even if a keepable article were written about the topic, this is about a million miles away from being its correct title. I'd be happy to withdraw this if the article sees substantive improvement and a title change before closure, but if that can't happen promptly then it needs to be deleted per WP:NUKEANDPAVE, as we're much better off restarting from scratch than we are hanging onto it in this form. Bearcat ( talk) 04:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the above, and it seems to be a very one-sided POV push. I'm sure some Chinese-made products "have poor quality and fake", but try telling that to all the Western producers who have their products made in China, like Apple for example. Neatsfoot ( talk) 15:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)- I've removed "The main reason of boycotting is Chinese products have poor quality and fake. Many products are dangerous and harmful to human health", as it is not given as the reason in any of the sources - they are all talking of boycotts for political reasons. Neatsfoot ( talk) 15:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is obviously notable with many different sources. Alphama ( talk) 08:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, but expand the scope and context. - Mardus ( talk) 10:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this case shoud be closed. There is nothing to discuss anymore when the article meet the requirements. Alphama ( talk) 16:20, 20 October 2014 (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.
- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 05:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Boycott Chinese products
- Boycott Chinese products ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It would be very possible to write a long, substantial and well-referenced article about the substantive reasons why campaigns are organized to boycott Chinese products — but that's not what this article, as written, is. Rather, it's just a stub which defines "boycott Chinese products" as a term, meaning a boycott of products that come from China (how enlightening and informative!), with unreferenced POV asides like "The main reason of boycotting is Chinese products have poor quality and fake." In this form, it doesn't even provide enough substance to escape being a simple WP:DICDEF — and for that matter, even if a keepable article were written about the topic, this is about a million miles away from being its correct title. I'd be happy to withdraw this if the article sees substantive improvement and a title change before closure, but if that can't happen promptly then it needs to be deleted per WP:NUKEANDPAVE, as we're much better off restarting from scratch than we are hanging onto it in this form. Bearcat ( talk) 04:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the above, and it seems to be a very one-sided POV push. I'm sure some Chinese-made products "have poor quality and fake", but try telling that to all the Western producers who have their products made in China, like Apple for example. Neatsfoot ( talk) 15:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)- I've removed "The main reason of boycotting is Chinese products have poor quality and fake. Many products are dangerous and harmful to human health", as it is not given as the reason in any of the sources - they are all talking of boycotts for political reasons. Neatsfoot ( talk) 15:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is obviously notable with many different sources. Alphama ( talk) 08:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, but expand the scope and context. - Mardus ( talk) 10:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this case shoud be closed. There is nothing to discuss anymore when the article meet the requirements. Alphama ( talk) 16:20, 20 October 2014 (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.