Deletion of Shooting of Danny Gonen

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS and . —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTAMEMORIAL)

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: I PRODed this as . PROD removed by article creator who described the PROD as "frivolous". Not so
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: As per  the most important of the several policies that distinguish notable events from routine news and events.   reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article."  I point you to in-depth articles on this terror murder in the New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, Haaretz, and elsewhere.  I remind editors raising  that WP is  and , and that  is not a policy based argument.   An event with this breadth and depth of coverage does not have to demonstrate ongoing impact to be WP notable. Under  an event has to meet , which this event objectively does. Nevertheless, this shooting has had demonstrable impact (in article since the creation) on the Israeli conversation about whether to agree to a prisoner exchange that Hamas is requesting this summer (for the bodies of soldiers, or for the return of a mentally ill Israelis who crossed the border into Gaza).  It is argued that since this was one of 6 recent terror murders carried out by convicted terrorists released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, a fresh exchange endangers the lives of Israelis and is, therefore, bad policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:BATTLEGROUND||WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT||WP:EVENTCRIT||WP:INDEPTH)