Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Civil Action No. 08-cv-1230

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  no consensus there's no agreement here whether this page is being still used for suitable encyclopaedic purposes or not. It's also appropriately tagged as notes. Wily D 09:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Civil Action No. 08-cv-1230


lying here since July 2010. Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST  D Big X ray  22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the MFD tag to the page at 12:45, 23 August 2012, so the closer may want to wait seven days (until 12:45, 30 August 2012) to close this discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- WP:Userpage says:
 * ''"Besides communication, other legitimate uses of user space include...
 * '...Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities..."
 * I've spent considerable time reading about the Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions. So this userspace subpage is an instance of "notes related to my wikipedia work and activities"
 * Four of the habeas petitions made it all the way to the US Supreme Court. They clearly merit individual articles.  Are there other habeas petitions that are significant enough to merit individual articles?  Maybe, I think so, that is for the community to decide.  Different contributors have different opinions as to what level of detail the remainder of the habeas petitions should be covered.
 * WP:Userpage also says: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." Notes I made about this particular habeas may make it into article space, perhaps as a single entry in a table.  Or it might not.  I suggest, so long as a userspace page contains notes made in good faith with the thought it could play even a minor role in article space it is a legitimate use of article space.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment please see WP:MERCY and quote below


 * -- D Big X ray  05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe WP:MERCY applies here. WP:MERCY, as it states on Arguments to Avoid, is for arguments that "make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever." In this case, Geo Swan obviously is citing a guideline to back up his argument. As to whether it's a valid argument, I'm still undecided..--SGCM (talk)  23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Geo Swan/08-cv-1230 should have complied with WP:FAKEARTICLE -- and it didn't. But after trimming it back to just the most important reference, and links to the most relevant articles, I don't believe WP:FAKEARTICLE applies now.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - in its current form. Achowat (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Save it it on your own computer - memory is cheap. This is a tad past my usualy 6 month criterion. Collect (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Userspace is not a place for indefinitely hosting copies of material that has been deleted or is otherwise unsuitable for an article, and the author's history suggests that is unlikely to change in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. There is no indication that this material is suitable for use on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per user's own reasoning above. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The page contained three references: http://natseclaw.typepad.com/natseclaw/files/Hamdan.28j.letter.pdf, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/10/24/lawyers_debate_enemy_combatant/, and http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/1101/0.pdf. The first and third sources are court records archived from the United States Department of Justice. Per Biographies of living persons: "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." The Boston Globe source is related to the Supreme Court case Boumediene v. Bush and does not mention Civil Action No. 08-cv-1230. The page violates WP:STALEDRAFT because it was clearly framed as an article. That most of the content was blanked does not free the page from violating WP:NOTWEBHOST. As it currently stands, the article has "(Civil Action No. 08-cv-1230)..." followed by the names of two living persons and a link to a court record. The connection of the two people with no context about their relation is misleading. The page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.