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 BLP Delete. While sourced, the article is primarily negative. The individual is covered in a mishmash of sources about his crimes, flight, etc., as well as his relation to a notable historical figure. The "keep" !voters and those who attempted to rescue this are commended for their sourcing efforts, but ultimately, this doesn't belong per our various BLP policies, most of which have been cited below. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edvard Broz[edit]

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

I have declined the WP:PROD tag as this needs more investigation. Yes notability is not transfered to relatives and WP:1E applies but there may just be enough coverage of this individual, just not in English. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of Josip Broz's descendants are fairly notable in southeastern Europe in their own right, and Edvard's case has been well-publicized. I'm not averse to deleting this, I'd just prefer that the content was incorporated somewhere else (like the Josip Broz article itself, but I expect that there would be great resistance to such a thing).--Thewanderer (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically WP:NOTNEWS - not really notable as Tito's grandson apart from his otherwise unremarkable trouble with the law. I can't really see this merged into Josip Broz Tito either. GregorB (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I prodded this. It is still not clear to my why he's a fugitive and why he's notable. Drink driving is a crime at 0.5 % BAC in both Bosnia and Serbia. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just DUI, in his case it's effectively a vehicular homicide. GregorB (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not believe that this article falls under one event, as the news coverage for his trial and subsequent events spans two years. That alone would mean that it is not a single event, even if it is just based on one. If the coverage was merely about the event, his trial, and the trial ended with a guilty or innocent charge, then yes, it would qualify under one event. However, his fugitive status and continued absence from the trial has instigated further news and, for our purposes, separate events, which takes him out of the one event category. Please refer to WP:WI1E. Silver seren^C 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have an argument there, but I'd like to see more cites before changing my mind. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's already 12 references. How many do you need to see? Silver seren^C 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Meets invalid criteria for notability and WP:ONEVENT but fails WP:PERPETRATOR. --Morenooso (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Silver seren, WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", however many press cuttings you can find. The GNG says that a subject with significant coverage "is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", but it goes on to say:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.

and, in a footnote:

Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example... minor news stories are... examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

This violates WP:NOT. He's grandson of someone famous, he got drunk, he had a crash, he's doing his best to avoid arrest; where's the encyclopedic quality, the "enduring notability" in that? This is an encyclopedia: we have Wikinews for this kind of thing. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2010 (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.