Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada

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 merge‎ to Ex tempore decision. I can't relist this a fourth time, so I am somewhat backed into making a determination on what is closer to consensus here with minimal participation. I find this option as outlined by James500 to be the best way forward. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is essentially just a list of a certain type of case decided by the Canadian SC. There are no WLs (signifying that none of these cases are particularly important or notable). There are only 3 years, signifying that this is a project someone started and never finished. Ultimately, we do not have any sourcing which would indicate why this list is significant or notable. The mere fact that the SC can decided cases in this way does not mean that we need to have a list of all the times they did so. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The editor who started this ages ago has made some edits recently so this is possibly the best option for now for this in-progress list. —siro χ o 02:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with moving to a draft, but the last substantive and productive edit to this page (by anyone) was in 2006. Highly unlikely anyone is going to pick back up where they left off, and even further, I do not see what this list adds to anything. There is no indication that being decided orally is of any significance that would give rise to a standalone list. 16:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ex tempore decision, which appears to be the parent topic, and merge the first paragraph of the lead (but not the list). Oral judgments of the Canadian courts is certainly a notable topic [1], but the article would probably need to be extensively rewritten to cover it. Supreme court cases are likely to satisfy GNG, but there is no explanation why oral decisions of the court should be listed separately from reserved decisions, and I cannot think of one. The page is a plausible redirect, and draftification never results in improvements. James500 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to decide between Draftification or a Redirect/Merge combo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 17 October 2023 (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.