Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bostan v. Bush

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 and redirect to Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees, per consensus. Per primary editor's request advice on splitting out child articles in the future:

Child articles should be independently notable, and have enough specific significant information to form a reasonable, if short, article.
Common information should not be duplicated - refer to the main article for any common details of the process, events etc.
In the event that the main article becomes unwieldy this should be resolved by splitting off the list of cases with details into "List of habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees" and further splitting the list as necessary.

– Rich Farmbrough, 14:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
14:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bostan v. Bush

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

No evidence that this article is about a notable subject. Article lists no independent sources about this case, and Google searches (Books, News) didn't reveal any either, nor of its new name v. Obama. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated for the exact same reason a number of very similar articles. All of these have no independent results in Google News or Goole Books and less than 100 distinct hits in Google, none at first sight from reliable independent sources. I have not included any similar cases where there looked to be more info available, as these either warrant an article or need a separate AfD. Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulsalam Ali Abdulrahman Al Hela v. George W. Bush
Aboassy v. Bush
Ahmed Abu Imran v. George W. Bush
Al Hami v. Bush
Al Huwari v. George W. Bush
Al Jayfi v. Bush
Al Qadir v. Bush
Al Wazan v. Bush
Al Wirghi v. Bush
Al-Mudafari v. Bush
Alkhemisi v. Bush
Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed v. George W. Bush
Almerfedi v. Bush
Alsawam v. Bush
Amer Mohammon v. George W. Bush
Barhoumi v. Bush
Bechellali v. Bush
Ha'il Aziz Ahmad Al Maythal v. George W. Bush
Hadjarab v. Bush
Hamlily v. Bush
Hassan Anvar v. George W. Bush
Hassan Zumiri v. George W. Bush
Imran v. Bush
Issa Ali Abdullah Al Murbati v. George W. Bush
Jihad Dyiab v. George W. Bush
Kabir v. Bush
Khalif v. Bush
Khi Ali Gul v. George W. Bush
Khudaidad v. Bush
Mahmoad Abdah v. George W. Bush
Majid Khan v. George W. Bush
Mohammed Abdul Rahman Al-Shimrani v. George W. Bush
Mohammed Al-Adahi v. George W. Bush
Mohammed Sulaymon Barre v. George W. Bush
Murat Kurnaz v. George W. Bush
Omar Deghayes v. George W. Bush
Omer Saeed Salem Al Daini v. George W. Bush
Rabbani v. Bush
Rashid Awad Rashid Al Uwaydah v. George W. Bush
Saed Farhan Al-Maliki v. George W. Bush
Salam Abdullah Said v. George W. Bush
Tasbit Vokhidov v. George W. Bush
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I did not review each nominated article, all of these would seem to be habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. There are, as the saying goes, common questions of fact and law in all of these lawsuits. A selective merge might be in order here, and any facts unique to each individual's suit can be noted in a list. The topic generally is obviously capable of supporting an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mass delete, with three or four exceptions for the cases that have resulted in decisions at the United States Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit. I've been complaining about these articles for two years, and they still haven't come up to standard. These articles are dozens and dozens of forks that will require identical edits that have never been made. For example, they've all been misnamed for nearly two years: it should be Bostan v. Obama. They largely consist of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. I agree with Ihcoyc that it's appropriate to merge any unique RS content to habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. THF (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, we don't have the sourcing for an article on each of these cases, and the contents are duplicative enough to make a list or combined article worthwhile. Are any of these worth redirecting? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Legal cases should only have articles if they have been reported in independent sources. Even then, they must be notable, usually because they set a precedent. We have for example the article Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which among all these cases was the one that was notable. TFD (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No real, independent notability to be found for these. The subject mater in general is certain;y notable, but the individual court cases rarely are, unless one sets a precedent or is noted in multiple WP:RS. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Given these cases have a common theme, there is no reason why a list article can't summarize them, is there? Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree entirely with JClemens on this one. All of these should be referred to in an article about the Guantanamo Bay suits filed after Boumediene v. Bush was issued. If one of them were to set a legal precedent, like Boumedienne, that would be notable. None of these suits are individually notable, even if the precedent that allowed them is notable. If I had my way, I'd create individual articles for each of the persons who were killed on 9/11, but few of them were individually notable, and there's a specific bar against using Wikipedia to call attention to a person, whether it's a memorial or any other belief that someone's suffering deserves a page. Mandsford 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. Potential target is a new section at habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Ray^Talk 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt the usefulness of these as redirects, but as they would not hurt/harm, my delete can be taken as a "would not oppose a merger" if need be at the final tally. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As individual articles, I don't see how they meet general notability criteria. It seems reasonable, though, that if there are notable legal issues, arguments, etc. common to all of them that one article could encompass such info. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Geo Swan mass created not only these articles but also a large number of similar non notable articles about this topic. He has moved some of them back to his user space after other editors explained the problem to him. He did not take action to clean up the rest of the problematic articles. His mass creation of non notable articles makes it very difficult to impossible for our reader to find or create articles about the interesting and notable part of the story. This could be seen as WP:NOTSOAPBOX. IQinn (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the articles on the individuals in question for those who have them, with a redirect. For individuals where there is no article, the article here should be retitled to the name, and used to start one. There is not really any point in doing these separately, but the filing of the case adds to the notability of the individual. I am very disappointed to see this being done as an AfD, rather than attempting a discussion of this first, because I think an appropriate merge could have been agreed on. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In most cases, the info that could possibly be merged to the articles about the indiciduals, was already long present in those articles. This means that there is nothing left to merge. But I am not surprised that you are "very disappointed", the opposite would have surprised me here. Fram (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect them to habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Some of them are quite long, e.g. Amer Mohammon v. George W. Bush, but still seem to lack any independent coverage. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees, per above, until any one of then established independent notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Good faith contributors can get tunnel vision, and make contributions that slowly start lapsing from policy, without realizing it. I started these articles, and I acknowledge, due to tunnel vision, some of these habeas cases do not merit individual articles after all. However, I continue to believe others do.
Readers who look at these cases reach different opinions as to how many merit separate articles. Some readers think none of the habeas petitions merit separate articles. Other readers acknowledge that the habeas petitions that made all their way to the US Supreme Court merit separate articles. Still other readers acknowledge that there are other significant cases that merit coverage. It has seemed to me that the more genuine attention readers give to the habeas cases, the more they recognize satisfy our notability requirements.
The nomination states there is "No evidence that this article is about a notable subject... Google searches (Books, News) didn't reveal any either, nor of its new name v. Obama. Fails WP:N."
I believe this is incorrect. I found multiple WP:RS that cite, quote or summarize the judge's ruling in Bostan v. Obama, as significant, due to his comments on the admissability of hearsay evidences, and as to how much benefit of the doubt the Government should be given for modifying the rules of evidence based on national security concerns.

I have included some of those WP:RS in the article. Geo Swan (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request -- Merge seems to be the consensus. I request the closing admin give clear guidance as to the steps anyone should go through who produces additional references, and unmerges other articles from the merge target. Geo Swan (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees as suggested above. The issue of Habeus petitions is itself notable, but they should be placed in one article because of the lack of notability of each individual case. I also take some issue with spinning these cases as being notable for their evidentiary noteworthiness as stated above. Habeus matters are adminsitrative in nature, and the rules of evidence, as I have explained ad nauseum, of a Court of Law differ wildy from administrative process, which allows the introduction of hearsay evidence so long as there is a reasonable indicia of reliability. Thus, the Judge's ruling goes to already existent US law, it is not really noteworthy as ground-breaking in that regard.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you have told us you are a lawyer, in real life. But, as I understand the wikipedia's policies, any real world background we have in the topics we work on, on the wikipedia, is simply not relevant. It is not relevant because the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, neither you or I are WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are based on WP:RS. If WP:RS regard Walton's rulings as sufficiently notable that they cover them, then they are notable. Most of the WP:RS I found that cited, quoted, summarized or commented on Walton's comments in Bostan v. Obama are also lawyers. So, why should we regard the published opinions of recognized legal experts, on the notability of Bostan v. Obama, as significant, while we discount yours?
  1. The authors of those papers are sufficiently well respected and recognized to get published. If and when you have some papers published on these topics we can cite your opinions too.
  2. The authors of those papers are identifiable. Their professional reputations will suffer if they what they write is unsupportable, or soon superceded. They have to be careful. The wikipedia allows contributors to be fairly anonymous. There is no real impact on your professional career if the opinions you offer here are weak. Really, there is no real impact on you if the opinions you offered here were not your true professional opinion.
  3. No offense, but we don't know you are a lawyer, or if you are, whether you are a tax attorney, or a real estate attorney, whose opinions on habeas matters, or war crimes, are hardly worth any more than a random guy in the street.
WP:RS regarded Walton's comments in Bostan v. Obama as worth covering, so they are worth covering. Geo Swan (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Resposne I believe you have been warned to refrain from making personal attacks by IQinn in the past, yet for some unknown reason, you continue to do so whenever someone proposes one of your pages you created for deletion. However, as you appear willing to discuss this matter, your own source does not support your claim. Firstly, your own claims above make a number of legal conclusion that, if we follow your own logic, can be provided the same disdain as you have shown mine. You have also not refuted the premise of my recommendation, and have instead launched into an uncivil personal attack rather than to point out why I am wrong. Moving to Waxman, a piece complaining about standards of proof for habeus cases regarding GTMO detainees based on "preponderance of the evidence" to hold a suspect, rather than "clear and convincing evidence" as advocated by counsel for detainees, you're simply wrong. This "standard" is one of proof to sustain holding the individual, it is not a standard of evidence as you claim. The article at p. 13 again addresses this, and again addresses the standard of proof. In conclusion, you have mixed up your standards rather badly, and the case does not have the "Evidentiary" value you claim, as further confirmed by your own source. The evidence is not what is at issue, instead the standard of proof based ON that evidence is what is at issue. Even an American layman would know that. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. The whole reason these cases had any airtime was political in nature. They werent really noteworthy as stand-alone cases. In any other environment, you would have never heard of them. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees and/or Lists of habeas petitions filed on behalf of War on Terror detainees, since these cases all seem to raise the same or similar legal and political issues. There's no point in repeating the same content in many different pages. the substantial differences between the cases can be presented in a table or other format in the target article. We should also redirect the "v. Obama" form of the titles there. Sandstein 07:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvagable into Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. I agree with Sandstein and Jclemens, the majority of the articles discuss much of the same content. While differences do exist, there isn't enough content out there to merit separate articles; the content should be merged into a single list and not spread across multiple pages.--resident (talk) 11:25, 21 November 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.