Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nidal Malik Hasan
there seems to be two major arguments against keeping this article, which I'll address in turn. First, , which states "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". For the first part, I think we all agree that this is far from a routine event, as is the coverage. For the second, I'm going to tie it in with the second argument against keeping this article: , which says "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." Again, nobody is arguing about whether the event is significant. Given that this gentleman is the alleged perpetrator (I use alleged, since our legal system says that he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law), his role is certainly significant. BLP1E gives the example of John Hinkley, which is apt. While  prevents me from predicting the future of his notability, I think that he meets the current standards as having persistant reliable coverage going above and beyond the event in question, that keeping the article is the right course of action
— User:Umbralcorax, 15:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)