Talk:Trial of the century

message: Did anyone really consider Milosevic's trial The Trial of the Century?  I never heard it called that... --Fluppy 07:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of this page? What does it mean to say that the term is used "idiomatically"? Or is that a misprint for "idiotically"??--Jack Upland 00:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This has become pointless.
Many of these are not trials of the century types.
I have deleted 7 of them.
If anyone wants to add another one, they need to place one citation that mentions the words "trial of the century"--Bangabalunga 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many 

message: Each trial listed on this page should cite to a source wherein it is referred to as the "trial of the century" or some variation thereupon.  As of now, none of them do. MarritzN 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Included references for Nuremburg. The first only refers to the phrase "Trial of the century" in the title of a book review, but the source is the New York Times and demonstrates that it is referred to as the trial of the century in mainstream publication. The second is technically a blog, but the subtitle is "experts debate the issues", is part of a law school website, and the main article more in the style of a point/counterpont editorial than a blog, so I say despite being called a blog, the formal format, the fact that it is from a law school, and is proclaimed to be experts debating the issue, makes it a good source. - Gripdamage 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: Was the George Zimmerman murder trial ever considered the trial of the century? I'd like to know. Please leave a reply on my talk page. Thanks.--67.54.187.155 (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Over 10 years later, someone just added it. Special:Diff/1204683123/1206667547 -- GreenC 21:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Zimmerman murder trial 

message: I just deleted the entire 21st century section because all of the sources either did not refer to the trial as "trial of the century," or they include mere offhand references from media gadflies, which is exactly what the article purports to *not* include. It would appear that this entire article is in a bit of trouble unless someone actually wants to find extensive, academically supported sources naming each trial as a "trial of the century" 73.25.125.140 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the citations need substance from named professionals such as lawyers and academics who argue why the term is appropriate. Many sources are merely by journalists, what we are trying to avoid, press sensationalism. I disagree with blanket removal, though, each one needs to be researched and better sourcing found. Only when no good sources are discoverable should it be removed. -- GreenC 15:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory criteria 

message: The article defines the idiom as "hyperbole". The idiom, by definition, is not to be taken seriously, it is "media sensationalism". Yet, our criteria is for sources from academics who use the term seriously. Hmmm.. as noted by the IP above the criteria is contradictory. And the list of court cases looks like a lot of indiscriminate trivia. Remove those, what is left: a single source that briefly discusses the idiom itself. Hardly enough to write an article with. So I wrote this AfD rationale:
:Remove the 'List of cases' section, there is only one source discussing the idiom, and briefly. I've watched and contributed to this article for over a decade, trying to make it work. Nobody has been able to add anything about the idiom, beyond one short source. It's been a trap for editors who Google the term and add any old example of the phrase. We could convert it to prose, explaining why specialists believe a trial is so important to be called TotC, but the term by definition is "hyperbole" ie. media sensationalism, not taken seriously. There is only one source that actually discusses the topic, and not enough to write an article with. It works fine as a dictionary definition. Merge to Wiktionary per WP:DICDEF, and the list of example is WP:INDISCRIMINATE ie. WP:POPCULTURE. 
But then changed my mind and didn't AfD it because really, I like the article. It provides a blue link for the phrase to educate readers about the hyperbolic/sensationalism meaning. At the same time though, the article really does lack sourcing and content, and is a honey trap for trivial examples.  -- GreenC 22:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria