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 delete. Consensus is that this list is redundant. No more merger suggestions have been made after it was poited out that this judge was not personally involved in all of these cases.  Sandstein  06:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases under Lord Phillips[edit]

List of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases under Lord Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article might be useful once the term of Lord Philips ends,but at the moment it is redundant to the articles 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which were also created by user:Chid12. As the lists by year are more logical I am suggesting this one is deleted and they remain. Ajbpearce (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers. Just as we generate discography lists for bands who are still recording, there is nothing wrong with a list of cases for a judge who is still sitting. I see no policy grounds for deletion, in the nomination; a merge will not over-balance the target and will enhance the utility of the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per good reasoning, however a redirect is somewhat useless as this Article title is not a viable search term. Any reader interested specifically in His cases, would start at His Article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if we merge then we have to redirect, and not delete, to preserve the history for GFDL reasons. Agreed it is not a viable search term but that is not the reason for keeping. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI would not support a merge as this is not a list of cases in which lord philips sat, but a list of cases heard by the supreme court in the time that lord Philips is President_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom ,regardless of whether lord philips sat in that case. The new SCOTUK is different from say SCOTUS in that usually only a subset of its judges sit on each case. Therefore to redirect to Lord Philips would be somewhat misleading as it implies he was involved in these cases when infact he will not have had any involvement in many, not to mention it would ignore all the cases he sat in the House of Lords. Ajbpearce (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a list of cases heard during the period he was president, then the subdivision by year would make more sense. the list for the Judge would be the list of cases in which he participated. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant to the lists of cases by year, I think (which is a better way of organising them), and somewhat misleading, as Lord Phillips only delivered a judgement in one of these cases. Robofish (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete once again per Robofish. JBsupreme (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (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.