Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott Aruba

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boycott Aruba

Mr. Mathew is not necessarily an unbiased source on institutional racism on Aruba, and the Natalee Holloway related Boycott Aruba call is already covered in the Natalee Holloway topic. Please see my argumentation on the discussion page Mzzl 10:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Maybe this isn't the right place to ask this, but I have been trying to find out more about Mzzl and even though there is a user page, there are no other references to Mzzl on Wikipedia. And even the postings on boycott aruba and this topic do not appear on Kate's Tools or 6 degrees I am new here, so I am not sure how to assess this. Mzzl, Do you have a talk page? Are you what they call a sock puppet? If you are real, I apologise, but I was trying to find a way to talk to you. Joaquin Murietta 15:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what a sock puppet is, I've only posted on here a dozen times or so. I think you can just create such a talk page yourself if you want. --Mzzl 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Sorry! Joaquin Murietta 06:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Topic is not encyclopedic. Connection of Mathew and Holloway cases is original research. Consideration of this topic here amounts to advocacy since the neutral point-of-view would be that no such thing exists. Dystopos 13:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep At issue is not whether the boycott is appropriate. #This topic has been the subject of considerable discussion at Talk:Boycott_Aruba and Talk:Natalee_Holloway#Merge and the resulting merger and edit does have a neutral point of view. To delete a controversial article is to advocate one POV.

# In Talk:Boycott_Aruba User:Mzzl has proposed the wrong test for deletion. He says Mister Mathew's unrelated call for a boycott on grounds of institutional racism is too marginal to warrant mention, and has very dubious merit. There are very few whites on Aruba, nearly everyone there, including the police and the politicians are a mixture of African, Native Aruban and Latin American. If there are other, independant sources confirming institutional racism on Aruba, I'll withdraw my request for deletion. --Mzzl 10:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC) #The test for a wikipedia article on a controversial subject is not whether one POV can be proved. However, a strong case can be made that Mathew's claim that there is racism between the Dutch and the native Arubans. # With respect to Mathew and whether he is credible, last week he won his lawsuit against the government of Aruba in the European Court of Human Rights. The September 29, 2005, opinion validates Mathew's claim of institutional racism in Aruba.

It doesn't say anything about racism. The ruling states that despite mr. Mathew's violent behaviour -he broke the prison governor's face and threatened prison staff with a self made weapon, according to the Eduardo Mathews article you have written- it was not legal to treat him more harshly than other inmates. It is nowhere stated he was treated that way because of the color of his skin or any other reason. You basically have one man and his family calling for a boycott because he feels he was mistreated because of his race and his remarkable intelligence. This might be true or not, but is it a movement? Is it encyclopedic? The inclusion of this article is in itself POV because it seems to be created with the intention of being linked to from the Natelee Holloway article and support the POV that there is something wrong with the justice system on Aruba. Your article on mister Mathews is fine, but there is no connection with the Holloway case, imo. --Mzzl 10:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

# The editor of Diario, speaking out against the boycott, opined on October 5, 2005, that the issue is between the Dutch and the Arubans. See 1 -- The principal suspects is Dutch, the lead investigator was Dutch, the prosecutor is Dutch and the five judges involved are Dutch. If you think about it, an attempted boycott against Aruba is unjust, because it is misdirected and won’t achieve the desired results. # CNN raised the issue on June 15, 2005 here The last people to see Natalee Holloway on the night she disappeared in Aruba were the white teenage son of a local judge and two middle-class young men of Surinamese descent, according to local police. Within days of when Holloway was last seen in the early hours of May 30, Aruban police arrested two black security guards who worked at a hotel near where she was staying. One question swirling around the investigation was whether police initially targeted the security guards -- who were released without charges eight days later -- as suspects at least in part because of their race or class. # One of the freed security guards, Mickey John raised the issue of racism, in several interviews, such as this one with Fox News -JOHN: Well, like I said before, the justice system, the detectives, they're all fools. They have to go to back to school. And they were used, like, a scapegoat, use, like, a black person in society to cover their mess. #See also Olumide K. Obayemi Racism in Aruba: The arrests of Abraham Jones and Mickey John were not only unfair, but classically racist San Francisco View (July 6, 2005). changing my vote for reasons stated by Jtmichcock Joaquin Murietta 02:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Posted by Joaquin Murietta 14:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You did not quote the preceeding line in my reason for asking for deletion: ... the Natalee Holloway related call for a boycott is already sufficiently covered under the natalee holloway topic. I don't see how the two issues are related, and why a call to boycott Aruba warrants a page of its own. Calls to boycott France or the USA don't get their own page either. --Mzzl 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether racism exists in the Aruban government. The issue is whether "Boycott Aruba" refers to anything, and whether that thing is notable or encyclopedic. I am not arguing for the deletion of the content, but of the article that tries to connect two events that are only related by a POV. That portion of the above material that is worth including in WP should, in my opinion, appear in other articles. Dystopos 17:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete... the issue is not "whether the boycott is appropriate", the issue is whether or not this is an encylopedic article that can stand on it's own merit. I'd say it is not. There are vastly more publicized boycotts that don't have articles. Google hits by and large reference Natalee Holloway related boycott, which is not even the main thrust of this article. I don't see anything here worth saving.--Isotope23 19:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... This topic does not merit its own page. It is a mere footnote to the larger Holloway story, and nothing more. Although I believe that a topic on the Bus Boycott in Montgomery, Alabama would merit its own page rather than being part of a larger article on the civil rights movement because of its accomplishments and scope, this "boycott" has no historical merit, arguably isn't even going on except in the minds of the Twitty family and a few others who cannot let this case go. Delete it and merge it into the Natalee Holloway page.(Unsigned comment by User:68.194.91.203)
  • Already merged. Dystopos 23:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete insofar as Natalee Holloway and Aruba topics can cover both. Jtmichcock 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jtmichcock and as soon as I can figure out how to red-line my prior vote and comments, I will. Joaquin Murietta 02:09, 16 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.