Deletion of Iorworth Hoare (2nd nomination)

Comment: There appears to be considerable notability here; agreed with Sumbuddi that the point of law at issue in A v Hoare is only a subset of the reasons this person is of encyclopedic interest.  This is an individual whom members of the Wikipedia-using public are potentially likely to want to read more about than would be contained in an article about a legal decision if there was a merge. There is obviously plenty of coverage outside the mere tabloids; for better or worse, this fellow seems to be more than just a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The A v Hoare article covers the notable aspects of law. The "lotto rapist" tag is tabloid sensationalism. The rest of the article fails under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The legal case concerning limitations on tort actions is notable and rightly has an article at :A v Hoare. However I don't see that notability is inherited from the case to anyone involved in it, so that aspect is . Nor does someone else's conviction for death threats convey notability on the object of these threats and similarly for acts of vandalism. The kernel here is the personal biography which remains built around one set of circumstances (lottery win while under detentive punishment), a  combination for which I feel the arguments in the 2008 AfD and deletion still stand
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (:WP:NOTINHERITED||:WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to A v Hoare.   case, nobody would have heard of Hoare if it weren't for the court case
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: selectively to A v Hoare-  the material in the article about the case would be useful background information in the court case article.  says that we shouldn't have separate articles about criminals if the material on them can be covered in some other article. In this case the subject's notoriety derives from the lottery win and subsequent court case which set a legal precedent, both of which can be covered in the article on the court case. He doesn't meet the further standards at  as his victims weren't famous and the motivation/execution of the crime wasn't enough to make it a historical event
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME||WP:CRIME)