Deletion of Erica Roe

Comment: I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but the subject appears to be notable. Her actions were cited ''twice'' by the BBC and also in other publications. That means that she is covered (no pun intended) by |reliable sources. She is not |notable for anything else other than this event. But evidently it was a pretty big deal if people are still talking about it 25 years after it happened. Kudos to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: The most famous streaker ever, in Britain anyway, and an incident which caused massive and lasting press interest.  Seeking to have it deleted under  seems an attempt at surrealist humour
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Passing  is sufficient for inclusion, and Erica Roe passes .  Surely it's as simple as that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I'd never heard of her before I sat down to this AfD. :) In terms of , she has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The ''depth'' is not substantial; however, she does have "multiple independent sources". Looking at the specific examples, it is true that she is known in the context of a particular event, however, she has "Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources" and "Widespread coverage over time in the media".  in expanding the single-event exclusion says, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I think given her television appearances and interviews and the fact that this single event apparently launched a short-lived modeling career, we can judge that she is not "low profile". She may not be strongly notable, but I believe (as I said above) that she is notable enough to sustain the article about her
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP)

Comment: Can't stand the woman and I'm fed up of hearing about her, but she is, unfortunately notable.  Corvus Cornix is wrong to cite  as although all the coverage ''stems'' from that one event they are not all ''from'' that one event.  They all reference that for this is what she is famous for; but because of that she has often been quoted by the media, has appeared in game shows and is considered a d-list celebrity
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I'll grant that she's not Lady Godiva. :) But to me widespread is less about the # of google hits and more about the breadth of press coverage. The sources currently in the article span at least 7 years (a couple didn't have publication dates). We've got the BBC, three different newspapers & Manchester Confidential which I can't precisely pin down. :) As I mentioned above, there was another Independent article and even coverage out of Africa which I didn't incorporate because of redundancy. I don't interpret "widespread coverage" as hundreds of hits, but as coverage across several separate reliable sources. According to the otability|notability guidelines, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no |original research is needed to extract the content". In this case, none is--except perhaps on the tv show. (I didn't add that myself for precisely the reason you mention; I don't personally know how extensive her involvement was. For a similar reason, I didn't add her book credit. Translated? What? :)) Her coverage is more substantial in some of the sources than others (certainly in the case of her personal interview), but I do not personally perceive it as trivial
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OR)

Comment: While I was all set to !vote "Delete" based on  and its note about single-event fame, my google check seems to suggest that there is an unusual level of notability attached to Roe's streaking. Accordingly, I've revamped the article somewhat with inline citations. Conversation about her seems to be ongoing, with articles as recently as this year listing her among the best known streakers of all time. I did not cite because of redundancy additional support for her notability at http://lifestyle.iafrica.com/hislife/features/398020.htm iafrica and http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2846562.ece the independent. Roe also seems to have been http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1801247/ featured in a couple of television shows and to have translated (?) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bare-Faced-Cheek-Sports-Comedy/dp/0233991824 a book on the topic. Given her evident notability, if the article itself is not kept, I believe it should redirect to  Streaking#Streaking_in_Sports (with perhaps a small expansion of the sentence about her there, such as full date). The name seems like a plausible search term to me, even if it is determined that the person does not need an individual bio, perhaps because, as BLP says, "Cover the event, not the person". (Although I'll note that covering the person would have eliminated this event. :D
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)