Deletion of Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif

Comment: If you read BLP1E you'll see it mainly deals with non-notaable people who are peripherally connected to a single minor, but still covered, event. This article easily clears both  and  as it is a developing legal case, with extensive and expanding coverage, against a terrorism subject in the United States. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge into a single article (for both suspects and the event) should someone wish to put the required work into it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CRIME)

Comment: Very clear case of not meeting . '''Agree''' with Noleander's comment above, subject to /CA. Because no conviction has yet been secured, a generally conservative approach in terms of BLP would be appropriate and care should be taken not to overstate or present as fact elements of the prosecution case which may be disputed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME||WP:N)

Comment: Fails  as coverage is just news, unlikely to have any lasting effect or to be covered down the line. I'm not sure why "It's ongoing" is supposed to be an argument for keeping it, Tom.2 - particularly as even the coverage that we do have is spectacularly routine and is only appearing at news-y moments in the course of the event (ie. we have a story from August 9 about the judge postponing the trial, but between the indictment a month ago and that, even the news was pretty much silent on it. No one is discussing this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: Passes   and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CRIME)

Comment: While coverage in reliable sources does exist, thus meeting the |general notability guidelines, it's only for one event. Some have stated that this would mean the article would fail  as a result of this. We must remember that people notable for only one event may warrant a separate article depending on how persistently they are covered in reliable sources. At this time I don't see a persistence of coverage of the nature that we would normally require to warrant a separate article, indeed Caylee Anthony is a redirect and received far more coverage in reliable sources. This article may change in future but at this time I favour deletion, as I can't find an appropriate article to redirect this to
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Fails . Neither the man nor the crime satisfy the notability requirements required for a bio to pass this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: passes   and . Single crime, but a notable one. And some deletionists here states that we shouldnt assume guilt, but on the other hand they assume that the article has been made because the man is muslim and thats why the man in the article has becomed more known..... talk about double standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CRIME)

Comment: This is a criminal suspect, who is alleged to have tried to blow up a facility.  I see some news coverage, but the  and  guidelines make it clear that a single crime - let alone a single ''alleged crime'' - does not establish notability. Also, the arrest was just a couple of months ago, so  is an issue.  Finally, we should ensure that we are not applying a double-standard and including (articles about) criminals in WP because their names appear to be Muslim or Arabic.   For example, if a person named John Smith were arrested 3 months ago on Federal charges of, say, trying to rob a bank, and got written up in a dozen newspaper articles, would that meet WP notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:CRIME||WP:RECENT)