Deletion of 2017 Buckingham Palace incident

Comment: Fails  as no long-term impact can be traced from sources in a  news cycle. I agree with Sport and politics:  is a major issue ignored by writers (many "experienced" longstanding wikipedians) even at the expense of almost every single guideline policing inclusion. This article, in addition to lasting, fails  which specifically mentions violent crimes are of interest to news media but not always Wikipedia. It needs ''historic'' or ''long-term'' importance, both of which are not established
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:ROUTINE||WP:RECENTISM||WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: per . Wide coverage is continuing today (the 30th) - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/buckingham-palace-terror-second-man-questioned-over-sword-attack-is-released-without-charge-a3623306.html http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/man-held-over-buckingham-palace-sword-attack-released/ar-AAqZynQ https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-held-over-buckingham-palace-sword-attack-released-163719517.html http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/bravery-officers-injured-buckingham-palace-13551814 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-idUKKCN1BA24C. Probably due to the sword(Jack Churchill anyone?). Current coverage is such that it should be kept - and if needed reassessed in a few months
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: Extensive national and international coverage of attack, sword, and indictment for terrorism meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIME)

Comment: per . This was |run-of-the-mill news, people break into Buckingham Palace grounds all the time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:MILL)

Comment: After reading new comments and news articles relating Parsons Green incident, I'll say this article deserves a separate entry. Clearly, not 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL)

Comment: Finally coming down on the side of delete after several days of careful consideration. This article fails ,  and . It simply shouldn't be here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: and less that 12 hours after creation of this page, the BBC announces today the suspect «remains in custody under suspicion of terror offences.»http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41098988.  Reuters says the same thing.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-idUSKCN1BA24Y.  Guys, the international coverage on this story is significant (covered not just by British media but US WSJ, Washington Post, et al., Australia, France, Spain, etc).  It is absolutely  to presume that what as of almost a week later continues to be considered a ''terror'' investigation will be dismissed as a routine event.  Come back after the investigation exonerates the attacker, and I will be the first to propose the encyclopaedic entry needs be deleted, but for the time being, there is no justification
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: I can't see a clear consesus to delete or keep. I still think this event is notable per . I don't agree with IP because we write here with encyclopedic point of view whereas on WikiNews we write as news story
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEVENT)

Comment: Just added today's reported,  of this incident in the Wall Street Journal
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per  this is an unremarkable news event: the most we can say is that a man was apparently stopped by police and put up a bit of a struggle whilst being arrested. The press interest is possibly because of the headline possibilities made available by the incident having took place near Buckingham Palace and the arrested man apparently having a sword in his car. But will the incident have enduring historical significance or a significant lasting effect? Unlikely, at best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRITERIA)

Comment: Well-sourced article on a matter that attracted interest well beyond national borders. Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)