Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts

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 and redirect‎ to Combatant Status Review Tribunal. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More Guantanamo cruft that doesn't meet WP:GNG on its own. There's nothing inherently notable about these transcripts, unlike documents we have articles for, such as the Pentagon Papers. This is one of thousands of such document releases each year by the Department of Defense. This article is a mix of WP:DIRECTORY and WP:PRIMARY. If anything, redirect to Combatant Status Review Tribunal, where it makes more sense, but I wouldn't lose sleep over deletion. Longhornsg (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all One now-blocked user's obsession with all mundane features of the Guantanamo detention facility is cluttering Wikipedia and wasting our time. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT, all of them (and this one is arguably the most reasonable of the bunch). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't mind obsessions, but I do mind poorly sourced Legal stubs. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.