Deletion of 2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting

Comment: As per . The case received much int'l coverage and over a month later, there are still http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4681905,00.html articles that mention it. The fact the murderer was released during Gil'ad Shalit exchange, makes this more notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: it's still "in the news" much later. However, |some brief factual analysis might be in order here. Can |somebody neutral work on this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:AGF)

Comment: per  # 2, the shooting was covered by the newsmedia, so what? All over the world, by reliable sources? That's . Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. I quote :"''Wikipedia considers the '''enduring notability''' of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, '''most newsworthy events do not qualify''' for inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: I am a BIG advocate of .  If nom had performed a proper  he would have have understood how frivolous his decision to being this article to AFD is.  He is, in fact, wasting the time and attention of WP editors.   I do understand that terrorism is a controversial topic.   However, it is routine for WP to have articles on terror attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_2015:Category:Terrorist incidents in 2015, and even on terror plots 2015 Boston beheading plot
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BEFORE)