Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif

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. — Joseph Fox 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif[edit]

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

This seems to be a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Topher385 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 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 WP:GNG and WP:CRIME 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. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a criminal suspect, who is alleged to have tried to blow up a facility. I see some news coverage, but the WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME 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 WP:RECENT 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? --Noleander (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME 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.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. 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.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no double standard. To establish criminal guilt requires the legal standard of being proven beyond reasonable doubt, but we can sensibly apply a lower standard of evidence to statements about motivation for creating a Wikipedia article, which has much less serious consequences. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:CRIME. Neither the man nor the crime satisfy the notability requirements required for a bio to pass this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it satisfies WP:CRIME? That guideline says "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." This encyclopedia does not even have an article on Casey Anthony, who is far more notable than the subject of this article. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another resolution to this AfD would be to re-cast the article so it focused on the case rather than the individual. In other words, do the same thing that was done for Casey Anthony, which was simply a redirect to an article on the crime: Death of Caylee Anthony. So here the article could be re-done as, say, Planned attack on Military Entrance Processing. --Noleander (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very clear case of not meeting WP:CRIME. Agree with Noleander's comment above, subject to WP:N/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. --FormerIP (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRIME, as strictly applied as it is suggested here, is not consistent with current practice regarding widely reported terrorist acts and allegations of terrorist behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hulla: What do you think of the BLP issues? E.g. the parallel with the non-existent article on Casey Anthony? What about renaming the article to identify the case/crime, rather than the person? --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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 WP:BLP1E 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. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This alleged crime does not appear to be of lasting historic significance and is just a news story so far. Can be mentioned in a list of crimes, or in an other article; or can be recreated if coverage persists into next year. Sandstein 05:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irrelevant one event. - DonCalo (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2011 (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.