Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bostan v. Bush
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
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)