Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saifullah Paracha v. George W. 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 redirect to Saifullah Paracha. J04n(talk page) 13:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Saifullah Paracha v. George W. Bush

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article relies almost entirely on primary sources. The case in of itself is not notable as demonstrated by the lack of secondary sources. The content is already in Paracha and would be undue in George W. Bush. That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I urge nominator, once again, to comply with WP:BEFORE -- it is an obligation that saves the time of uninvolved third parties. Paracha's habeas was in the news again, just two months ago: The following academic paper includes Paracha's name 90 times, it has an eight page section, entitled: "The Paracha Position: The Green Protective Order is Too Restrictive". Several hundred Guantanamo captives had habeas corpus petitions submitted on their behalf. Most of them weren't cited in the petitions of other captives. Most of them were not discussed in scholarly articles, or in books on Guantanamo. There are about two dozen exceptional cases, that were widely discussed. This is one of them. There is a time and place for merging. This is definitely not one of them. If we KNEW, for a certain fact, that every single reader who came to Paracha v Bush was really only interested in Saifullah Paracha, then a merge suggestion would be defensible. But there are a whole other subset of readers who don't really care about Mr Paracha, and the details of his life. Instead, they are interested in the Guantanamo habeas petitions. When a topic has strong meaningful ties to multiple other topics, which aren't closely tied themselves, then its wikipedia article should not be considered for merging at all. A merge of that article into any of the related articles. No matter which target article is chosen as the merge target, some of the information that is relevant and on topic in an article on the initial topic -- Paracha v. Bush here -- won't be relevant or on topic in the target article. When a standalone article has sufficient references, and is distinct from suggested merge targets, it should not be merged, particularly when it is related to multiple other articles. Proponents of merging frequently act on a mistaken aesthetic notion. They think one big article looks better than multiple smaller articles. They are mistaken. There are multiple ways we can navigate through the information provided by the wikipedia:
 * 1) We can navigate by clicking on a link to some information, which has the enormous advantage that, if we read a sentence, or a paragraph, and decide the link did not take us to the information we wanted, we can click on the "back" button, and return to where we started from.
 * 2) We can navigate by using the browser's built in search function.  Unfortunately, the stupid browsers of the last several decades, only remember one search term.  And, another drawback, once we arrived at the searched for term, there is no way of returning to where we were before the search.
 * 3) Finally, we can navigate through scrolling, and relying on the good old mark one eyeball, to find a key term.  While this doesn't lose the search term we are saving for more important uses, as above there is no convenient way to return to where we started from, before out search.

So Keep. Geo Swan (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Than perhaps you might consider merging all of the Gitmo writs into one article? To call these X v Bush articles redundant is an understatement.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - `ll eachindividual case is notable as a major case dealing with fundamental pricniples.It is admittedly difficult to predict, but 50 years from now these cases wil lall be written about in histories of US civil wight and respect for international law. ``, and. DGG (talk) - 08:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL.  Argument for keeping seems to hinge on the supposition that this case will set a precedent that will eventuate in its being considered as a major precedent to legal scholars looking backward "50 years from now."  Perhaps so, but at the moment it is merely a legal case that lacks sources to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , with regard to WP:CRYSTAL... surely when you did your own web search you found the case had enough references to it so that it measured up to GNG today?  You did see that one of the references I included, above, devoted over eight pages to discussing the case?  If you don't recognize that the books, academic papers, and press reports that already exist establish that the case measures up to GNG what kind of references do you expect to see, before you would recognize this?  Do you expect Roe v. Wade level of coverage?  Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Saifullah Paracha.The case itself - the habeas corpus petition, as a legal case - has absolutely no secondary coverage that I could find. Just primary coverage such as transcripts, and narrowly focused legal sources like scotusblog and findlaw. The man himself has coverage enough for an article, and his efforts to get free are well covered there. There is no justification for a separate article about the legal case. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2016 (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.