Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Court calendar

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court calendar

I'm not against an article explaining what a court calendar is, or the different forms it takes.... but this article seems to not be that but is intending to be a list of internet links to all US (and potentially world) court calendars. Wikipedia articles should not be "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories" (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIR). I didn't feel comfortable just deleting all the links and stubifying the article - as this effectively would mean deleting the page - without opening a discussion - any thoughts? Madmedea 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You couldn't link to /some/ court calendars and not all of them, and the article is a good jumping off point for research on legal articles. Nardman1 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My point is that a wikipedia article should not be hosting lists of links to external sites. This is a wikipedia policy (not just mine) (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY) Madmedea 17:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently, this is a repository of links. If the links were removed, the article would be a dictionary definition, and I don't see much room for expansion. There might be another article somewhere that covers this topic tangentially, and a redirect would be reasonable then, but I don't really know what article that would be. Mango juice^talk 15:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I suggest we delete all the links per nom reasoning and stub the article. I think there is some modest room for expansion - e.g. ways in which different states/countries use court calenders, history of the alternative term "docket" etc. As an aside, Docket really should be a disambiguation page. I will follow up on that, though I think I will wait to see the fate of this article first as that will affect the disambiguation.--Kubigula (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The present article could be improved to meet the WP standards, provided it doesn't try to add links to all court calendars. It might be better to point to some other sites that contain more complete sets of links, to reduce the number of links needed here. In its present form it helps answer the general question, 'What kinds of online information do courts publish?', and it's so short right now, it's hard to object to it. However, the constraints of WP:NOT indicate that it should not add any more links unless it provides more analysis. EdJohnston 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mangojuice already said the first two thoughts that came to my mind. I might add that this is a bit US-centric, but that alone is not reason enough to delete. If not outright deleted, I'd suggest stripping the links and transwiki to the wiktionary. Agent 86 00:23, 17 February 2007 (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.