Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghulam Mohammed v. Donald Rumsfeld


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ghulam Mohammed v. Donald Rumsfeld

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Fails WP:N. No Google Scholar, Books, or News Archives results. Only thirty distinct Google hits, all of them from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Fram (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- There have been a limited number of habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of the captives in Bagram. It was very difficult for lawyers in the USA to learn the identities of the captives held in Bagram, but they succeeded in doing so a few times. For those who don't know, Bagram Air Base holds what has been called "the other Guantanamo" -- the Bagram Theater Internment Facility. There has been a significant amount of comment from WP:RS over those habeas petitions.  Some WP:RS commented that those habeas petitions would have a very significant effect if captives held in Bagram were given access to the US court system. Since this article has started there have been some significant developments.  A US District Court Judge in Washington ruled that most Bagram captives were not eligible to access the US court system.  They ruled that only those captives who were not captured in Afghanistan, and who were taken to Afghanistan by the USA were eligible to access the US court system. I have no problem merging the other habeas petitions from Bagram captives into a single article, and I suggest this now.  IMO the assertion that this topic is not notable is not supportable. For what it is worth the Grizwold article is still available online.  I came across a new link to it just a couple of days ago.  I would take the time to fix that reference, and add additional references to bring this article up to date -- if it weren't that a recent flood of xfd over articles or userspace pages I started simply does not allow me enough time to do so.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is here. It contains, as far as I can tell, no mention of this habeas corpus in its four pages. So please explain to us how this topic, Ghulam Mohammed v. Donald Rumsfeld, is notable. You state that "IMO the assertion that this topic is not notable is not supportable.", but I have shown that my searches showed a lack of evidence for your statement: it is up to you to show that it is notable, not simply to state it, nor to claim some inherited notability from the parent topic Bagram habeas corpi. Fram (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If Geo Swan wants to merge the information from this article into a more comprehensive article that meets WP:N, I don't object, but there's no reason for hundreds of standalone articles about non-notable cases that need to be edited in parallel. THF (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and THF. IQinn (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: lack of substantive secondary source coverage on this specific writ. A wider topic (e.g. 'Jurisprudence on rights of war on terror suspects' or similar title) would almost certainly survive notability -- but would be a very different article from this one (which is mostly a large, unencyclopaedic, WP:OR table). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject fails notability requirements.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.