Deletion of List of bank robbers and robberies

Comment: Meets . The amount of notable bank robberies/robbers is not unmanageable for a list. Deletion is not cleanup - nor is it the place to address the finer points of common English in relation to legal English in regards to robbery, theft, and burglary (whether the legal or common English are grounds for inclusion - should be noted in the list's inclusion criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST)

Comment: whether split or maintained as a joint list, as indexes of articles per  and complements to the categories per . The nominator's complaints seem to come down only to fixable issues addressed through normal editing, and AFD is not cleanup. See  and . Any entries that don't actually qualify should be removed, just as they would be from the category. And whether this includes verifiable bank robberies that don't merit standalone articles is also an issue for editing and consensus to determine, and routine to enforce if limited only to notable entries
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP||WP:NOTDUP||WP:ATD||WP:SUSCEPTIBLE)

Comment: passes  and listing of the items cannot be really questioned. I would support merge only if there is an article concerning the bank robberies but that is not proposed yet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  relative to :Category:Bank robbers and :Category:Bank robberies. Also keep per , as the article was significantly cleaned up after the nomination for deletion occurred
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:NOTDUP||WP:HEY)