Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of copyright case law

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of copyright case law

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NAD. and because this page is both impossible to maintain, and so incomplete it represents a hazard to anyone using it. additionally someone may look at a page like this as being accurate and it is not. depending on the response here i will busy myself with other similar pages that are equally incomplete and pointless. NB. if you like pages such as this one i sincerely apologise for being so rude about it, my opinion is of course subjective. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's an annotated index of WP articles on this topic that satisfies WP:LISTPURP, complementary to Category:Copyright case law per WP:CLN. If there are articles we have that are missing from this list that should be included, add them. That's the only kind of "incomplete" that matters for this kind of list. Cf. Template:Dynamic list. I have no idea how WP:NAD is supposed to apply here. postdlf (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and CLN. It's a perfectly valid main list that complements Category:Copyright case law. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit, when i say its incomplete, i mean its missing some 160,000 cases. unless you count worldwide, in which its missing 633,000 cases. cant we just leave WorldLII to do this work? wikipedias coverage of cases is scant at best. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have articles on 160,000 or 633,000 cases and we never will, because most of those cases will not be notable. We will list the ones we do have. I think you're just unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines and practice in both case law articles and lists. It's better to get more experience under your belt before nominating articles for deletion. postdlf (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LSC. If the list becomes too large, we can subdivide if necessary, but that is no reason to delete this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. It should be a list of notable copyright case law matters. May need pruning for those that may be non-notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Postdlf comments i have realised that lists are not supposed to be: 1. complete, 2. fully representing the topic in question, 3. for the general public. infact after examining WP:LISTPURP it is clear that list such as this one are mostly for easy navigation and categorisation, rather than being a rather basic article. I believe that this AfD can be closed now. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extremely useful cross-reference; a start of legal research. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.