Deletion of Antisemitic boycotts

Comment: per  in books, laws, and scholarship
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: The nomination makes a |vague wave to  but fails to explain what the supposed synthetic proposition is.  But, as explained by , "''SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition''".  What we have here is a list of various historical boycotts.  As there are sources describing these in a general way, the page therefore passes .  It might also be considered to pass  – "''Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) or geographically (e.g., Rugby union in the British Isles), the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:SYNTH||WP:NOTSYNTH||WP:LISTN||WP:BROAD)

Comment: Sources are good, the topic is notable, and  has been refuted above. Still, if someone wants to point out a  target, I'm certainly willing to look into this option. I did look for one but found no clear candidate. Maybe I missed something? Just saying  without any specifics has the appearance of an  argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:MERGE||WP:FORK||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)