Deletion of Umar haque

Comment: The coverage is following a typical 'flash' cycle - some initial coverage https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm="Umar%20haque" around Jan 17 when the case was heard, followed by lots of coverage https://news.google.com/news/story/djQxHX22UOkydCMdR3qif_J2eW5OM?hl=en&ned=us&gl=US a huge burst of coverage right around March 3 when the verdict come out. That is pretty much the typical "relatively short news cycle" referred to by |PERSISTENCE and unless we see some significant coverage outside those time frames it fails that criteria. |RAPID anticipates that |PERSISTENCE will be met but, even a mere couple of weeks on, it is apparent that it has not. Therefore keeping the article under |RAPID is not appropriate although I have no objection to is being saved as a draft which is a recommended alternative to deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:RAPID||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:RAPID)

Comment: WP:NCRIME,  and  covers this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: underline|per {{u|E.M.Gregory}}'s proposal below.}} /|BLP1E at best. Terrorist plots are a dime a dozen. This one was unique and sensational in that it targeted young children in a very direct way but I do not see it, based on current reporting, as 'one for the textbooks'. If there is reporting beyond the initial sensationalism or if later investigation shows it to be a new ISIS strategy, then it would merit an article. As it stands it is a horrific story but not of encyclopedic |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:BLP1E||WP:N)