Deletion of 2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer

Comment: clear case oj . As User:Icewhiz says, coverage is from the time of the incident & time of the trial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: the story received the media coverage it got because the shooting was originally thought to be related to ISIS, yet no evidence of their involvement was ever proven.  This is purely a mentally unstable individual who became radicalized in his head, and decided to shoot a cop.  The shooting was politicized by others with their own agenda to push.  Thankfully the officer didn't die, but that serves to make this even less notable.  Today we have the luxury of hindsight to see that the event didn't deserve the broad media coverage it got.  Overall, a routine occurrence, and I think that  carries more weight here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Encouraging to see the "I can throw the same news story at you so this is notable" rationale is not cutting it with ''most'' of the editors thus far. Clearly another case of why |we are not news; it is simply illogical to claim there has been |continued coverage when there has only been brief bursts of reports at ''exactly'' the time we would |expect them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: Wikipedia is . The coverage in books is shallow and incidental; noting the mention by Dana Loesch as evidence of notability strikes me as odd; ultimately, a routine crime, with no long-term societal impact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Per GracefulSlick above;  and "wire spamming", which just takes the same story and with minor rewrites or re-configuring of content, makes it seem like a clean source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: Meets and exceeds , with 80 citations so far.  People's unfounded objections include , but that's a misreading of the policy.  See , which reads, for example, «Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the  guideline.»  Besides,  is designed to weed out "announcements, sports, or celebrities," not actual Lone_wolf_(terrorism)|lone wolf terrorism.  Another unfounded objection is , but  alone trumps that, and anyway the ''book'' citations nix the argument, as, by definition, coverage of the subject in books by definition is not news.  The final objection raised is "selective quotes and a POV essay."  This is egregious, since , deletion is not cleanup: if anyone has any genuine objections to the material as presented, the forum to raise it is on the TP, and not AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:ROUTINE||WP:NOTROUTINE||WP:ROUTINE||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:DINC)

Comment: Wikipedia is not news. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)