Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian Supreme Court cases


 * 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   Redirected to Lists of case law, per below. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Australian Supreme Court cases

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no "Australian Supreme Court", so the article doesn't really make sense by definition; it tries, completely fails, and is at the wrong title anyway, to be a list of state supreme court decisions. The result is an almost-empty list which will permanently stay that way. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * delete even if it could be populated it would be just a directory of cases as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That policy is not applicable. James500 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, while there's no federal supreme court, the article seems to be concentrating on cases by the various state-based supreme courts. I agree that the article is poorly titled, but it does make sense to me to keep a list of notable cases in one place, rather than balkanising everything out into various state and territory lists.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep per Lankiveil. The article is clear about what "Supreme Court" means, and many of the cases which reach such courts will be notable. Pburka (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for now with no prejudice against creating state-based pages with reasonable content. There is no reason to conflate the cases seen by eight entirely separate judicial bodies, and as it stands this list is pretty useless, but there could conceivably be enough information on state cases with a little research. Frickeg (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an outcome that as the nominator I'd support, for what it's worth. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This clearly should not be deleted as it will certainly satisy LISTN due to professionally published case digests, citators, indexes and so forth, and the fact that the cases of these kind of appellate courts are typically individually and collectively notable. Perhaps it should be moved to List of Australian court cases (or perhaps that should be "lists" plural) and reworked accordingly (which just means adding subheadings for the High Court and the supreme courts). Separate lists for the various courts can then be spun out when the need arises. At this time, no one has advanced a valid rationale for deletion. James500 (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (I should emphasise that what I have in mind is a select list of cases). James500 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list was started in 2007 with the edit summary "It's a start. EVERYONE, please keep adding cases to the list - even if not yet written". That was it. No more cases were added to the list. Surprised? Of course not. This, in my view, does fail WP:LISTN because of the lack of sources considering the "group" -- cases heard in Australian Supreme Courts -- in detail. There is no "group". There is no intersection between Australian Supreme Courts. Each Supreme Court has their own case reporters and citations. There is not even a common thread: in each State the Supreme Court takes on a different scope and shape. What might go to the Supreme Court in one State will go to the District Court in another. So, yes, there may be an argument for a list of notable Supreme Court cases of individual States. But not for the Australian supreme courts as a whole. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can ruin that argument in minutes just by moving the page and changing the lead. James500 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have moved the article to the location that I proposed earlier and reworked it. James500 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the job is not done. Federal Court? Family Court? Industrial courts? Privy Council? There is nothing that brings the cases from these disparate courts together, as a notable group. Instead we have a ludicrously unmanageable list with literally tens of thousands of potential entries. Mkativerata (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Any work that deals with the doctrine of precedent is discussing court cases collectively as a group. Digests and other like works tend to include the decisions of all courts that have precedent value. This is a select list, so we can omit cases. There is nothing disparate about these courts. They are all Australian. They are all part of the same legal system. That is a perfectly natural grouping and it is the one that appears in the literature. You are asking me to believe that there are no works discussing Australian law as a whole, or that they don't possess chapters on case law. There is nothing "unmanageable" (whatever that really means) about this list. We already have lists with hundreds of thousands of entries and "lists of lists" whose scope is much broader than what is proposed here. Indeed we have a list of lists of case law. This is not a problem, we are NOTPAPER. In all fairness, the arguments that you are advancing seem to be completely devoid of merit. James500 (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The worst case scenario for this list is to spin off stand alone lists for the Supreme Courts of Tasmania and Victoria respectively (which already have entries) and redirect List of Australian court cases and the old page name to Lists of case law with selective merge to include links to the two new lists. That would be a tolerable solution. Outright deletion is out of the question: it has WP:SNOW chance of happening. James500 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with this, and I don't see how it's the "worst case" scenario - it creates lists of subject matter that actually have a common basis (lists of decisions of a specific court), removes the grand mashing together of tons of courts, and redirects this article to an existing article where people can find the content that was poorly organised here. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ for presentational reasons only and without prejudice to the future expansion of the redirects. I found at least one digest that does treat the supreme courts as a single unit. James500 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Australian court cases clearly satisfy LISTN. It will not be difficult to come up with reasonable selection criteria. Perhaps all reported or digested cases? (The last time I checked they only get reported if they are considered to be of sufficient general interest). There is nothing wrong with this list that can't be fixed by editing. James500 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that lists of Australian court cases don't belong in Wikipedia - just that a mashing together of a whole bunch of courts and thousands of cases isn't a useful solution. This article needs to be gotten rid of. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See my reply immediately above. James500 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to participants and closer: the article has been moved around a lot; the history is now at List of Australian court cases (currently also a redirect). Ansh666 04:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I propose a technical close. The page in question is now a redirect, so AfD is no longer the appropriate venue to discuss its deletion. If anyone wishes to renominate it, the right place would now be WP:RFD. Pburka (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.