Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights

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 merge to European Court of Human Rights. Sandstein 07:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant content fork of European Court of Human Rights that simply has selected some criticisms of the court at random and placed them in a new article. Any material that is judged to be valuable can be put in that article. Having a whole article that is just "criticism" of the court in isolation is not helpful. Ajbpearce (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Did this really need a deletion discussion? You're not advancing an argument for deletion when you acknowledge that the material (even just some of it) could be valuable to the main page. The material is sourced and can simply be moved over to European Court of Human Rights. Content issues can be handled over there. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Deletion would be appropriate if there's nothing to redirect to, or if nothing at all is noteworthy about a subject. Information should be merged judiciously (pun moderately intended) to avoid bloat or undue weight. If that might be a problem, the best thing to do is discuss on the main article's talk page, but probably not nominate for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 04:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redundant content fork of European Court of Human Rights - no, it is an article covering a sub-topic in a manner more detailed than it would be suitable in the main article. that simply has selected some criticisms of the court at random and placed them in a new article - is criticism by the members of the highest courts of states subject to ECHR jurisdiction, and by former member of the ECtHR itself "selected at random"? - Any material that is judged to be valuable can be put in that article. - with this approach that article would become too long. Having a whole article that is just "criticism" of the court in isolation is not helpful The Wikipedia community considers articles on "just" criticism to be able to be helpful, as is shown by the Category:Criticisms. If you consider it to be too isolated, it's a question of putting more wikilinks in the articles, not of deletion. Satiksme (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. See Wikipedia:Content_forking#Acceptable_types_of_forking Satiksme (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to European Court of Human Rights or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.