Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v. Elliott
given broad neutral coverage of the verdict (I actually didn't know it was due today). , but all sources agree that the verdict is precedent-setting so I expect there to be lasting coverage of it, and there's no point deleting the article just to recreate it later. The other issues I mentioned can be solved with editing, so deletion seems to be off the table. Pinging {{ul|Nothing-Significant-to-Report}} {{ul|Dumuzid}} {{ul|99.235.212.48}} (the other delete !voters) to see if you agree with this assessment, then we can close this discussion
— User:Ivanvector, 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)