Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sessions of the United States Supreme Court


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sessions of the United States Supreme Court

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is largely duplicative of List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition. What's more, it seems to invent a definition of "session" and use it to name the article. "Session" could be used synonymously with "term", which nowadays lasts a year. Session could also be used to describe a block of a few weeks when the court sits to hear arguments and deliver decisions, or to the morning or afternoon argument sessions of a given day. Despite the flexibility of the word "session", I am not aware of its ever being used to describe a period where a particular group of justices serve. Rrius (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A look at Google books did not confirm that it is common terminology to call each change of composition of the court a "session." No references are provided in the article to confirm that is a correct usage. A more common usage was to refer to an occasion where the Justices had a meeting open to the public to hear arguments. Seems duplicative per the nomination. Edison (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On the Supreme Court's website, the word "session" is used to describe just about any period of time from a term ("A Term of the Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. Usually Court sessions continue until late June or early July.") to a single day ("When the Court is sitting, public sessions begin promptly at 10 a.m. and continue until 3 p.m."). It does not seem to be an official term of art as far as I can tell. Janus303 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Deletion doesn't make much sense and will break older links needlessly. This is largely a duplicate of List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition. Redirect there. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd ordinarily agree with that, but there are only two article-space links to this one, one of which is the proposed target, List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition, and the other of which is Supreme Court of the United States, which already links to the other article. Thus, one would be deleted as duplicative; the other as circular. Aside from a Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team log, all the non-article-space links are related to this AfD. -Rrius (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete - The article is redundant. No need for a redirect, because the only article that links to it is the article it would be redirected to. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge: I have no comment on whether the term "Session" is used correctly here, but at a minimum some effort should be made to preserve non-redundant portions of the list, specifically the information provided about 1.1 Judiciary act of 1789, 1.2 Court after 1807, 1.3 Court after 1837, 1.4 Court after 1863, and 1.5 Judiciary Act of 1869. These portions seem particularly well placed in this list and provide relevant historical context to the list. This context is not conveyed in the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition. -Ciricula (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! It should have been there anyway. -Rrius (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not even the links provided by the so-called session numbers point to anything session-worthy, but rather to the Curts named by their Chief Justices. —ShinyG 08:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; duplicative. I'm an American lawyer and I don't recall ever seeing the term "session" used in this manner.  As ShinyGee notes, the name of the Chief Justice is used to distinguish differently composed Courts.  postdlf (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Merge per Ciricula. If there is information here that is not reflected in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition, add it there. bd2412  T 15:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2010 (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.