I'm sure you're heart is in the right place, but your arguments don't hold much water when held up to the standards Wikipedia places on verifiability. 

 Cite your source for this statement: "EInsiders did indeed break the news."  Again, what is your source?  Wikipedia is not a place for original research, rather for verifiable information.  No source? 

 Cite your source for this statement: "It is simply the BEST internet source for obituaries, bar none."  Who says so?  Are they a reliable source?  Is this a true statement simply because you say so? Do we even have an independent group that rates sources for obituaries?  From the Einsider obituary: "I was still watching re-runs of Bonanza when "Trapper John, M.D." hit the airways and, there he was. He looked so different. Yes, we were all much more grown up now. Roberts had lost his hair. But, by God, he was a doctor and from his role of "Adam" it wasn't hard to see him in surgeon's scrubs."  Notice that the Einsider obituary is a personal, rather than professional obituary? 

 Your constantly placing EInsider into the article a reliable source, without actually vetting them as a source  does indeed smack of a personal agenda on your part... when there are so many fine sources for Roberts' obituary, e.g., The New York Times. 

 Wikpedia has rules and guidelines; all editors need to follow them.  In fact I will stop discussing this matter with you; its a fruitless discussion.