Deletion of Bostan v. Bush

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSOAPBOX)

Comment: 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  and .  I agree with Ihcoyc that it's appropriate to merge any unique RS content to habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYN)

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 ."''I believe this is incorrect.  I found multiple  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)