Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Yugoslavia)

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 Snow Keep. Article's been significently improved/sourced since nomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Yugoslavia)

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

No indication of significance, no sources. NeedAGoodUsername (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be added as part of student assignment (indicated on the talk page of the article). Dwebsterbu (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added several sources that cover the Yugoslav commission for truth and reconciliation in depth. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was WP:BEFORE followed in this nomination? Neonchameleon (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a review of sources, meets WP:GNG/WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is probably an article here if somebody gets down to writing it. Topic passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2016 (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.