Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Kevin 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35
The article says only that: This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 35. I think this might be a copyvio if that is the case. Listcruft and all the links in the article are red. SynergeticMaggot 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nom. I was unaware of other the rest of these articles at the time, but still feel its unencyclopedic. SynergeticMaggot 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) *Delete per my nom and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SynergeticMaggot 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per nom withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per SynergeticMaggot. Fabricationary 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you realize there are over 80 more of these? Articles exist for most of volumes 5 (1801) through 91 (1975). A number of them have a few cases that aren't redlinked. Looks like the author  has authored a huge number of Supreme Court case articles, and filling in details on many of these. I have left a note on the editor's talk page to notify him/her of this AFD. Fan-1967 02:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Still, the user shouldn't be creating lists full of redlinks. He should be creating the pages, then adding the lists.  If this page does get deleted, it can always be recreated at a later date whenever the named pages get created.  Fabricationary 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I always hate it when people use the Wikipedia is not paper argument, but I think it applies here. Most of the problems with lists don't apply here. Many lists are POV, or inherently not complete or comprehensive. Doesn't apply here. I don't know why half a dozen of the volumes are missing, but that seems easily remediable. I don't see a problem with keeping these lists, even if the process of blueing the links is only 10% done in ten years. Fan-1967 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this project is, in fact, encylopedic in a very real sense, and these may be quite useful, even if only one or two notable cases in each volume ever get blue-linked. Looks like these are a framework. Fan-1967 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the volume number is the reporter volume reference number; since the actual lists are obviously products of public institutions I'm not sure why there is a copyvio inference. The list would appear to be a working list that is actively being worked to fill; I'm sure many of the entries are more than notable.  Kuru  talk  02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. There is no copyright violation here and the content is encyclopedic.  The volume refers to the public domain, U.S.-government published United States Reports, the official case reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Far from "indiscriminate," listing the cases decided by the highest court in the United States is clearly an encyclopedic venture, and organizing them by the manner in which they were published is one of many sensible ways to do this.  I've already used these lists as an aid in writing articles.  WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases is organized and active to address how to better improve and maintain these lists, including changing the titles.  Postdlf 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it may also help standardize case naming conventions. Rklawton 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That is a minor issue. I happened to find an entry in one of these articles (volume 60, for 1857) with a blue link to United States v. Stewart. Stewart is a common name, and the article linked to is for 2005. But, I'll let the fine people on this Wikiproject address issues like that. Fan-1967 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And using "what links here" along with these lists will help us identify those repeated case names, long before all of them have articles. Postdlf 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep please show me the copyvio. If there is none, it is an encyclopedic entry and, even if filled with red links, serves as a to do list for Wikipedia contributors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Postdlf. There is no copyvio as this is a work of the US government and is thus not covered by copyright (the Court has several of the newer volumes, though not this particular volume, freely accessible on their website, for goodness sake).  Given that the reporters, indicated by the volume numbers, are essentially chronologically ordered, this is basically a "portion of a chronological list of SCOTUS cases."  Far from an indiscriminate collection of information. &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: No. When I nominated it, I was not aware that there were 50-80 articles more just like it (which should be deleted also). Why there needs to be a list of Supreme Sourt cases is beyond my scope. They should be turned into a category at best. The entire article is filled with no information other than a list of court cases which 1, arent even notable, and 2, arent even articles. I fail to see how this is encyclopedic, or how it helps Wikipedia. I wont be withdrawing my nom. Plus, I never said it was a copyvio, but that it might be. It reads like it was copied directly from a source. SynergeticMaggot 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly makes a U.S. Supreme Court case not notable, and how did you manage to determine that for all of the cases in this list? Postdlf 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I've never liked these lists full of redlinks when we already have these lists full of bluelinks, but I'm persuaded by Postdlf's arguments about use as a research tool and for identifying repeated case names. The relevant wikiproject's coverage of cases heavily trends toward recent cases; if there were a list like this for volume 541 (from two years ago), it'd be full of bluelinks. Eventually we may extend our coverage to cover important older cases, but we haven't yet. I also think the nominator is misapplying WP:NOT. It says "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:" and then goes on to list eleven specifics. Claiming an article that isn't one of those eleven specifics is an indiscriminate collection of information does not make it so.--Chaser T 04:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not misapplying it. I didnt point to a statement in the header "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", I quoted the statement and pointed to the policy page. Because this is a clear statement none the less. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a clear statement, but the policy specifically applies in eleven limited areas. This article is none of those eleven. Which specific section of WP:NOT are you asserting this is in violation of?--Chaser T 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) I think the confusion is that I was quoting from the preamble for the header you mentioned. There are eleven specific types of indiscriminate collections of information. This isn't one of them.--Chaser T 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Personally, I think this is terrific, and it seems to me the easier thing to do is to make the list first and then work on the individual cases. Not everyone who wants this kind of information can afford LexisNexis or Westlaw. While WP obviously can't compete with those services (and shouldn't), this information is useful to those who need it. If a list of SCOTUS cases isn't encyclopedic, neither are the lists for the anime characters, or the professional wrestlers, or the video games, or movies that start with the letter 'B', and on and on. It can't be written overnight, either. There are some editors who can thoughtfully analyze these cases and many more who can't, but at least it's a start. Just my two cents.  -  Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is why lists > categories for material that isn't created yet, but should be. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. -- H·G (words/works) 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep Not indiscriminate, the only delete vote was per nom, and the nom has now been withdrawn, so effectively noone now wants to delete this. --ais523 08:41, 19 July 2006 (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.