Deletion of Harry Roberts (murderer)

Comment: Poorly researched nomination, clearly done in bad faith given http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shepherd%27s_Bush_Murders&diff=prev&oldid=286706256 this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Roberts&diff=prev&oldid=286707483 this and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Maurice_Roberts&diff=prev&oldid=286707668 this, where the nominator contemptuously merges content and amend a redirect and disambiguation page before this discussion has even begun! Perhaps the nominator should follow his own ignorant and condescending advice http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDunc&diff=prev&oldid=286709164 here and acquaint himself with the guidelines (sic) before commenting. Unlike the nominator who just claims he fails a guideline and a policy without explaining why he does, I can explain why he doesn't, as I have actually acquainted myself. First off . "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Does Harry Roberts remain low profile? No, quite the opposite, he's one of Britain's most high profile prisoners with news coverage ongoing for the last nine years over his fight to be freed well after serving his thirty year recommended sentence. Amongst many other books, he appeared in a chapter of ''Killers: Britain's Deadliest Murderers Tell Their Stories'' by Kate Kray in 2002 telling his story (which seems to be a re-hash of the chapter from ''Lifers'' by the same author published in 1997), and there's over 50 pages of it. Hardly low profile is it? Just like http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/i-have-served-my-time-535195.html this newspaper interview in 2004 obviously makes him low profile. All this http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22harry+roberts%22+police+killer&cf=all news http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22harry+roberts%22++cop+killer&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=uk&hl=en coverage is hardly low profile is it?  So there's proof that he's not only covered in the context of a particular event, other aspects of his life have been covered by reliable sources and he isn't low profile, so how is a separate biography "unlikely to be warranted" when Harry Roberts is demonstrably high profile. "Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event" His recent coverage is based on his fight to be released as he's one of Britain's longest serving prisoners, so it doesn't give undue weight to the event. It is about events stemming from the original event, but not one event. In fact if the nominator had looked for book sources or read the interview linked above (amongst many other sources) he would have realised that the article can be expanded much more to cover the life of Roberts before, during, and after 1966 to make it a more well rounded biography. "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." It's definitely a significant event (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3109855.stm "one of the most high-profile crimes of the 1960s") and Roberts had the most substantial role in it, as evidenced by the amount of information available about him compared to Witney and Duddy. "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." He's still receiving coverage over forty years after the event, that would seem to be pretty persistent to me and anyone else with a clue. Now for , which needs less refuting as it's largely a re-hash of  anyway. "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." See above mostly. Harry Roberts is not notable for just a single event, so he can't be covered for just one event. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Did Harry Roberts have a large role in the event? Emphatically yes. "as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Are there reliable sources that devote significant attention to the indivudual's role? Emphatically yes. Harry Roberts is notable for his participation in the original event, him being Britain's most wanted man and on the run for three months, his place in popular culture, him being one of Britain's longest serving prisoners and for his ongoing fight to be released from prison. To say he's only notable for one event is just incorrect, and his coverage in reliable sources over forty years after the event show that to be the case. When this article is expanded to cover Roberts early life, the manhunt and his ongoing fight to be released it will be bigger than the article about the event itself, so would be a prime candidate for forking back out to a separate article anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BIO1E||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Very notable person, well referenced article.  and  are the same section of a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.  is one of the most misquoted rules in AfDs.Per :Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them...If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate.This individual was the center of this event, a substantial part of  this event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BIO1E||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:ONEEVENT)