Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trial of Gotovina et al

:{{la|Trial of Gotovina et al}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trial_of_Gotovina_et_al Stats])

:({{Find sources|Trial of Gotovina et al}})

This is unnecessary. There is only one other article that describes a specific case at this tribunal (prosecutor v Mladic). This shows inconsistency. Either create articles for all cases, or delete them all. I should inform the community that at none of the other international courts or tribunals are there articles such as this that describe one case. The Historian (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The nominator presented no valid argument for deletion whatsoever. It is only natural that there shall be only one article on an ICTY trial before there is the second one. Besides that, the nominator has poorly researched the topic he/she is objecting to, since there is yet another article on the ICTY trials - the Trial of Slobodan Milošević. Finally, if an article meets WP:GNG it should not be deleted - and this article definitely meets the standard.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The supposed basis for the deletion (an "all-or-nothing" argument) is not based on policy and is therefore invalid. Editors are definitely not obliged to produce a series of articles in order for coverage to be "consistent". Given the volume of coverage of this particular topic (71 references in the article, out of which more than one half are in English), a notability-based line of attack against the article does not stand a chance. GregorB (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The nominator seems not to have read WP:DEL#REASON or WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Notable topic covered by multiple reliable sources. Nominator's rationale is similar to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_does_not_belong Just does not belong]--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per all of the above. Although I'm not a fan of articles on trials supported solely by press releases published by the court (e.g. Prosecutor v. Milan Martić) as it turns Wikipedia into a court archive, the Gotovina, Mladić and Milošević cases have attracted considerable media attention and had repercussions beyond the courtroom, thereby turning them into topics worthy of standalone articles per WP:GNG. Timbouctou (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per WP:GNG, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets GNG and N, this article is very detailed and useful. I see no valid reason to delete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2013 (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.