Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of courts which publish audio or video of arguments


 * 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   no consensus. While this article does need some expanding, there is no consensus to delete. Nakon 03:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

List of courts which publish audio or video of arguments

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:INDISCRIMINATE: only a table, without any claim of significance. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Oral arguments in court cases are per se significant, as are the courts themselves. Because only a minority of courts have public access to those records, the fact that one does is significant. It's new; give it some time to get fleshed out before jumping to delete. --Sai ¿? ✍ 17:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that the list just needs an explanation written for it's existence because I see information like  which talks about the controversy in the first amendment regarding publishing of court video and audio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs)
 * See here for a whole bunch on that exact issue re video in the US Supreme Court. -- Sai ¿? ✍ 18:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nomination does not advance a valid rationale for deletion. This article does not fall under any of the criteria of INDISCRIMATE as it not a plot summary, lyrics database, listing of statistics or log of software updates. Nor does it contain anything remotely similar. In England, the publication of sound recordings or photography of legal proceedings is certainly significant as (in the absence of leave) it is respectively punishable as contempt of court under section 9(1)(b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and as an offence under section 41(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (as amended in either case by sections 31 and 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and excluded by orders made under section 32). James500 (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: I don't think this list is particularly useful. A large number of courts in the U.S. post oral argument audio or video. This page is just a list of links to the URLs where that audio/video can be found for some of those court. This seems to fall under both WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. Perhaps if some of the First Amendment discussion directly related to the availability of audio/video of court proceedings online and linked to this article, it would be worth keeping. But I do not think that is currently the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osuadh (talk • contribs) 07:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an argument not for deletion, but for improvement. I have no objection to improving it. Be bold and do so. ;-) --Sai ¿? ✍ 19:31, 18 February 2015 (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.