Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 21:00, 30 June 2008.

Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases
My reasons for nominating this list for featured status are as follows. First, this list is a complete archive of all the names of the cases heard by the United States Supreme Court throughout its entire history of over two centuries. Second, this list is an extremely helpful tool in fostering the creation of new articles for significant Supreme Court case articles, allowing the creation of those article with the correct case names. Third, the list is logically and aesthetically structured in a way that reflects the most common citation format used by the Supreme Court, that of the United States Reports. Fourth, the list is highly stable, and has survived all attempts at deletion as can be seen here. Finally, if this nomination is unsuccessful it will at least develop discussion about how to further improve the article. My one concern is that the lede may be to short for some editors, but I consider that to be in line with the list's functionality.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I rarely oppose, but in this case, this is just a list of links to other articles. It is useful, but it is certainly not Featured List quality. If content was added that, perhaps, discussed the cases, then I would reconsider. Gary King ( talk ) 03:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe this page is the exact copy of the SCOTUSCases template. If you want to improve this page, you should at least add some context such as the years of each volume. This list also should be renamed to reflect the fact that this is a list of volumes of the U.S. reports. Remove the word "complete" from the title because all lists should be complete, so saying that this list is complete is redundant. The lead is not too short, it's non-existent. You only restate the title of the page. As Gary already said, you need to add some context. I suggest withdrawing this nomination.--Crzycheetah 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * All lists on Wikipedia are presumed to be complete unless noted, so please rename.
 * Fails Criterion 1, there is no prose, so there is no way for it to be professional.
 * Fails Criterion 2, there is no lead, so there is no way for it to be engaging, nor is there anyway for it to describe the list we are about to view. And no, restating the title is not a lead.
 * Fails Criterion 3, there are no "annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries."
 * The list also does not exemplify Wikipedias best work, imagine if you would have made this list by just listing the links in order down the page. That is basically all that is in this list, all that has been changed is that it has been put into a fancy order.
 * Sorry, but I would recommend withdrawing or a premature archiving by our directors.  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 04:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, quite. The way to do this is to choose the scope more strategically. Perhaps not the whole history, but start with just a decade or two or three, giving useful and interesting combinations of information about each, probably in tables. Choosing what that information will be is where the skill lies. Wanna do it? Suggest you withdraw this one. TONY   (talk)  16:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm "quick-failing" this list's nomination. There are several serious criteria failings.  I suggest the nominator takes the list to peer review before returning to WP:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.