Deletion of Ernesto Miranda

Comment: Borderline |pointy nomination based on a misinterpretation of WP:SINGLEEVENT (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31|see here for the origin of the nomination). The policy says among other things that "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". Surely Miranda's role ''is'' significant. Biographical details of Miranda's life after ''Miranda v. Arizona'' would obviously be out of place in the article about the case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: both.  Not only were these cases leading cases in criminal procedure; these cases were so well known that they became household words and political issues.  This level of attention, which rose well above the norm for parties in important cases, generated curiosity about the individual litigants.  As such reliable sources stepped in to feed that curiosity.  Thus it came to pass that these two drifters and petty crooks had the sort of attention paid to their lives that meets the |basic standard for biography even if their chief claim to fame was only as parties to those cases.  Note also that the "|one-event" standard only applies to |biographies of living people, and therefore not to either of these articles; BLP is at any rate an ''exception'' to the general standards of both notability and sourcing, and as such should be strictly confined
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BLP)

Comment: both. These people have become namesakes to such important law cases that I think there's a high likelihood of readers wanting to know more biographical detail about them that would be off-topic for the articles on the cases themselves. And there's plenty of reliable sourcing. I don't see why we can't keep separate articles on the people and the cases. As for , I think the line that "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" fits these two cases
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: nom. is strictly correct but these are such very famous cases that interest in who the plaintiffs were is natural; Miranda's name is synonymous with the outcome. Hence, I propose to err on the side of making WP useful by retaining these articles in a mild application of . For lesser cases I would concur with nom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)