Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords 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   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unnecessary, and also a misnomer. By definition, Wikipedia should only include "notable" House of Lords cases; the list appears more to be a coverage of the most famous cases than those that are notable, since I would suggest that almost all House of Lords cases (even those which produced no groundbreaking new direction for the law) would pass WP:GNG due to the coverage in papers and journals that a decision by England and Wales's highest court inevitably received. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. The format is superior to that used in List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases. Either we list all cases, but use this format as it's more informative, in which case merge to List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases. Or we only list those cases with their own article or that are otherwise significant, in which case keep this article, and merge appropriate details from the other one into it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge any missing material to List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases or its sub articles. Per nom, surely all cases, by virtue that they have reached the House of Lords are notable? Regardless of that there appears to be no threshold or definition of the notability needed for inclusion on this page. Thirdly the format that this page takes has already been adopted at some of the sub articles of List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases. For example, seeList of House of Lords cases 2007. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until a well- thought through alternative policy has been suggested. notable means worth its own wp article, but entries which are not separately notable can still appear in WP lists. It makes sense to have a fairly short list of the notable cases and separately a much longer list of all the cases. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SamuelTheGhost, the House of Lords had decided hundreds of thousands of cases. If you think that a list of the notable ones would be fairly short, I'm sorry to burst your bubble. Just about all of them are going to be able to pass WP:GNG, making a list of "notable" cases approximately the same as a list of cases overall. Ironholds (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't just "think that a list of the notable ones would be fairly short", I simply observe by counting that the list we are discussing contains about 55 blue-linked entries. It may be as you imply that at some time in the (remote) future all the "hundreds of thousands of cases" get wp articles, and if so we can reconsider the structure then. Meanwhile I'm effectively suggesting that the title here should be interpreted as List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases which have wikipedia articles SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And most of them don't :p. My point is that it's a misnomer; the purposes of lists are to navigate our internal dynamics (not here), to provide information (not here, really) or to list articles (which is presumably what this falls under). If the purpose here is to list articles, then by definition our List of House of Lords cases is going to be a List of (notable) House of Lords cases. Ironholds (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Don't we have categories for that? We could call it Category:House of Lords cases :). Incidentally that category already has 200+ cases. Add the 150 or so that are missing into this article and this article starts to look like either another incomplete version of List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases or an indiscriminate collection of information Pit-yacker (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I was under the understanding that all HOL cases (and now SC cases) are notable not that many have articles because few contribute to law related articles. What we need is some pages along the lines of 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for each year. This is quite a lot of work and there is little incentive to do so when there have been about half a regular dozen contributers to law related articles in my time here. Quickbeam44 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases. Appears duplicative.  Sandstein   06:20, 3 September 2011 (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.