Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 197

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 Closed as "keep, non admin closure." by IslaamMaged126. Tevildo (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 197[edit]

None of the internal links have articles.Many of articles like this were created and deleted.I see no notability or use of this article and I say delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IslaamMaged126 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-30 14:32:18

Keep for the sake of coherence. There are hundreds of list articles in that series, and the fact only one case in this particular one is mentioned in a separate article is no grounds for deletion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only for the sake of consistency and coherence. A bunch of redlinks on what's really a disambiguation page is perfectly fine. Wizardman 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They will eventually turn blue. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the articles will eventually be created, and this list is useful as are all others in this series for research purposes. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found similar pages (for other volumes) to be helpful; articles can be created on a piecemeal basis. RJC ^Talk 19:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems too much like a directory entry. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as part of a large pattern; lists are often 'directory entries'--that is one function of lists in WP; and there is no WP requirement that items in a list be blue links Hmains (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the above statement this is reliable and correct sources. The information, by the best of by knowledge seems correct. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above as an important link for WikiProject Law. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:23, 31 December 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.