Deletion of Robert Chambers (killer)

Comment: with the article about the killing of the victim. This is a famous and much written-about case. The killer was non-notable before the killing, and is known only for it. Per  a stand-alone article is probably not warranted. My problem with the article is that it violates  by making many derogatory stateements which lack direct in-line citations. It also says he was convicted of manslaughter, a lesser ofense than murder, but calls him a murderer (I revised the intro to say he was "convicted of manslaughter" to replace the previous statement that he is a murderer. We do not necessarily report "truth," we just report well-referenced facts, especially in cases involving living persons. The opinions of editors matter less than the findings of the trial court. The article can be improved by the addition of inline references for any controversial or derogatory statements, which are numerous
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLP)

Comment: This article could definitely use more source references. That just takes work but does not necessarily mean the entire article should be deleted.  It is a valuable and factual resource which needs to be cited more. Just exactly how long does “over time” coverage in the media mean? For the particular length of time this case was prevalent in the media (the time it took to cover arrest & trial, & write books & film movies), the media coverage was widespread.  I clearly remember it being on the news and in the papers daily, but of course I cannot provide those references at this time without research. In any case, this is not an article about the victim, instead it is about the perpetrator making it a  and not #MEMORIAL. There is nothing I’ve found in Wiki that says when the victim is mentioned, it makes the article a memorial. The main subject of THIS article clearly is the perpetrator. The main subject of the Jennifer Levin article should be the victim.Regarldess of WHY it was famous, that fact remains that this particular crime WAS very famous in the 1980’s.  A revisionist view on history can’t change that because it may or may not fit into the current “notability” guidelines. It is true that there may be more than 500 other murders committed in NYC every year.  But THIS one got the coverage, therefore THIS one should be included in the encyclopedia.  In order to support this, would one need to see a majority of the sources cited from all of the media coverage from that timeframe? Or would common sense prevail? If it was not worthy of inclusion, why then were there books and movies based on this very event and not one of the other 500 murders that year? And if these facts were not referenced or cited, they need to be.By the way iridescent, in reference to your comment above, manslaughter (which Chambers was convicted of) is still murder, it is just that the killing was committed in the heat of passion or by mistake and was not premeditated.  Being convicted of manslaughter IS a bit different than being convicted of murder, but the perpetrator is still considered a killer.  In the world today, common usage of “killer” is synonomous with “murderer”.Murder is distasteful. Many people would prefer not to read about it.  But that should not be a reason for deletion.  Where do we draw the line
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NOT)