Deletion of Litigation involving Tesco

Comment: The trivial and run-of-the-mill cases can be stripped out per #IINFO, and if anything else is really encyclopedic enough to be mentioned in the main article, then it can be
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Not every case cited is notable because those settled or decided at first instance are  only persuasive precedents and would not pass  on their own, and there really is nothing to be gained by mentioning them at all, as any large company gets involved in litigation at that level. Of the others, if they set out novel interpretations of the law (as the Nattrass case did), they should be able to stand on their own as articles within WikiProject:Law or within a legal topic. There is nothing here of the notability, say, of the McLibel case, and the only linking fact is that Tesco was a party in all these cases. One might think that this was a somewhat indiscriminate collection of cases with no obvious point in mind. Outside the context of writing a law-based article, to make these cases notable enough to merit inclusion would require multiple, reliable, secondary sources, and I don't see any
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)