Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of class action lawsuits

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of class action lawsuits

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

Necessarily incomplete (there are thousands of class actions filed every year) and out-of-date list that should be a category at best. Half of the class actions listed aren't even encyclopedically notable. THF (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fine per WP:CLN, and I see no redlinked or non-linked entries. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Half of the class actions listed aren't even encyclopedically notable"? Then nominate those blue links for deletion, and let others comment on them, since somebody apparently thought that they were notable. What I see here is a perfectly legitimate list of class actions for which we have blue-linked articles. I would hope that this somewhat uninteresting list becomes something more than a duplicate of a category, the obvious addition being what the subject of each suit might be-- deadly pain patches? phone service overcharges? uncomfortable mattresses? etc. In any event, WP:CLN applies. Categories are generally useless unless they include a list to refer to, although the people who like categories seem to have an evangelist's zeal when it comes to saying, "There is no other way but our way". Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is appropriate. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, as does this particular list, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. But there should be a category as well--categories have the advantage that items will automatically be added to them. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs more sources and to state the inclusion criteria, but this is a good way to provide more organizational detail than a category. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (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.