Deletion of Boycott Scotland

Comment: 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  though.  Keep due to press coverage as Dust pointed out above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Advocacy contrary to 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)