Deletion of List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 205

Comment: meets the requirements of  purposes: information, navigation and development
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: these lists are useful for the purposes of development and, someday, navigation per . The Lists of United States Supreme Court cases and the lists by court indeed deal (almost) exclusively with those cases we have articles for and thus are unsuited for the purpose of development. Actually they link to articles of this type for a complete list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: As per many of the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35, this is a valid use of lists. To quote from my opinion on one of them "Is a sensible structured list (by date) meeting . Most if not all Supreme Court cases are notable in their impact as can be seen from the most recent of these lists List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 546 where many of the cases have their own articles. As notability is permament I see no reason why the same cannot be done for many of the cases on this list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: Full disclosure: I created this article and many of the other lists of U.S. Supreme Court case article lists. But as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35 cited by Davewild, those well reasoned arguments should really suffice. I will also say that I use these articles all the time to navigate and create new articles. Nowhere else on wikipedia is there a complete list of US Supreme Court case articles. It is also organized chronologically, so despite what Indrian says, it fulfills the first two categories of the WP:LIST. As for Indrian's point that wikipedia isn't a directory at , that page says: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." I would say this is comparable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)