Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 263


 * 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 keep. Snow Keep based upon the votes clarifying that this is part of a large set and is notable (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 17:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 263

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, undersourced, no use for the wiki, most links shown are redlinks anyways.

Really most of this series does not meet notability standards. Jerry (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jerry  (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jerry  (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jerry  (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Don't understand that a list needs links at all to be notable. Seems a useful index of the law of the land for that year. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page appears to be part of a larger set of articles, deleting this page wouldn't make sense Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  20:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Possibly unsourced, fails WP:NOTDIR. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 03:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one part of a very large organizational scheme of U.S. Supreme Court cases, nearly all of which are notable by virtue of having been decided at the U.S. Supreme Court level. TJRC (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The external links indicate that details of cases are available on websites. If we have such articles for every volume, then we need to consider them together (unless this is intended as a sample nom), but this is currently a list with one or two blue links.  This suggests to me that (like most court cases of that age) most have now ceased to be of significance and are thus NN, which explains the redlinks.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons noted above re this being part of a larger set of articles, and notability as cases from the US Supreme Court. Bookscale (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, a list of boring old court cases - "Fascinating! Absolutely fascinating. Erm, tell me, er, how exactly is a list of US Supreme Court cases notable, .. as it were?" (with apologies to Blackadder), that happen to be a fundamental part of US law that underpins, for better or for worse, how people live in that country, so a definite keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto, all the others. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, per above. Claiming it is "un(der)sourced" shows the nominator and subsequent deletion !voter have no idea what they are even looking at; it is literally a list of cases, with citations, that were reported in a particular source. And for the modern SCOTUS era at least, we will eventually have articles on each of these opinions. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above (recommend snow closing). Nothing wrong with redlinks, especially since the targets are all notable. Deleting it would actually hurt the encyclopedia by making our index of US Supreme Court decisions incomplete (see Helloimahumanbeing above). Wug·a·po·des​ 22:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously any case going to the supreme court is notable and should be listed on this series of list.  D r e a m Focus  00:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.