Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 3

Amanda Knox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E are both satisfied given the unusual circumstances and sustained coverage in a myriad secondary sources, not to mention the creation of a film (Amanda_Knox:_Murder_on_Trial_in_Italy) which ironically does warrant coverage. Furthermore it's not fair and may even be libelous for us to immutably redirect the woman's biography to a murder she was acquitted of -- samj _in^out 21:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have cleaned up the last version and posted it at User:SamJohnston/Amanda_Knox for your convenience. -- samj _in^out 21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely all of that information is already on the redirect target.--Scott Mac 21:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the redirect from Murder of Meredith Kercher to Amanda Knox own article. ASAP. Notable and should have her own article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the redirect from Murder of Meredith Kercher to Amanda Knox own article. How can there not be a Wikipedia article on someone who is so overwhelmingly notable? How can she not be notable when the media has had a spotlight on her for the past 4 years of her life? How can she not be notable when more people know who she is than 99% of the people who currently have their own Wikipedia article? How can she not be notable when a search on Google of her name returns 12,900,000 hits? How can she not be notable when her name has been searched for on the English Wikipedia 270,000 times in the past 2 days? The deletionists are doing a great disservice to Wikipedia and our readers by obstinately refusing to allow an article to be created that is more notable than a majority of the other biography articles currently on Wikipedia, and an article that so many readers are looking for to find the information they are seeking. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Amanda Knox is far more famous than Meredith Kercher. The original redirect was questionable at this point Amanda Knox is going to be a political cause quite separate from Kercher. CD-Host (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected this has nothing to do with how famous she is. The quesiton is: "is there notable, encyclopedic material about the subject that doesn't belong on the page about the case?" I can't see that there would be. If Knox goes on to do lots of notable things in the next years then that would be a reason for an article, but we can't know that.--Scott Mac 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it disturbing if not outright wrong to have Amanda Knox not having her own article. Her article is currently redirected to a murder which she was acquitted of. To get this right a separate article is indeed needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Per WP:CRIME: "The crime [...] has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.". Also satisfies WP:EVENT in scope, duration, depth and diversity. Also satisfies WP:BLP1E: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.". The intention of WP:BLP1E is to avoid capturing temporaneous events and here we have seen significant, diverse, in-depth coverage of the woman over a period of four years, and likely for some time into the future. -- samj _in^out 22:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn At the point where there are multiple books and a movie about someone, I think there's a reasonable argument that she is a notable individual. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point — I didn't realise there were many books on the subject already! -- samj _in^out 22:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not such a great point - as far as I know, the books are all about the crime and the trial, which is what the redirected article is about. I am not aware of any books about Amanda Knox that are not primarily based on the crime and its aftermath. Even the name of the movie seems to tell us that a redirect is appropriate: Amanda Knox -> Murder on Trial (The "murder on trial" is the murder of Meredith Kercher, which is exactly what the redirect article is called!!) Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly haven't read through all the books or watched the movie, but I'd hazard a guess that they provide significant coverage of Miss Knox as an individual. As a compromise, splitting the current article into two article (one about the murder and one about the trial) could be a good way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There is simply no rationale for redirecting her page to a murder she was acquitted of. Remove the redirect, and either give her her own page or keep the name Amanda Knox empty on Wikipedia. Countercouper (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn ASAP. I understand and support the first redirect, but now notability (and the counter-productiveness of the redirect) is obvious. Dayewalker (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - as a minimum it is undue to direct her name to a murder she is not guilty of. I support an article - we have a million less notable articles about all sorts of low notable dross/promo crap. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected - Boy, there are a bunch of heated, ill-conceived, in-the-moment overturns here. I keep wishing for editors to stop editing for the moment and try to develop a eye for editing for history, but I find myself disappointed. Repeatedly. Anyways, there is nothing that can be said about Amanda Knox that isn't tied to the murder of Meredith Kercher, this is why WP:BLP1E exists. There is also nothing wrong with the redirection to the murder page, as the mere existence of a redirect isn't prejudicial and does not imply guilt. Note that Casey Anthony is a redirect to the Caylee Anthony murder article. Redirects are largely immune from NPOV concerns anyways, so that argument is particularly weak. Finally, even if there was a rough consensus in support of a Knox article, I feel that DRV is ill-suited to handle it in quite this manner, simply because there is nothing of substance to restore at this time other than half-baked puff pieces in several editors' personal sandboxes. What should have happened here was a new draft created first, a product of a few weeks or so work among interested parties, and then that version is brought to DRV for possible restoration. Put the brakes on this and edit cautiously for once. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, in this "there is nothing that can be said about Amanda Knox that isn't tied to the murder of Meredith Kercher", you are 100% totally wrong. The moment she was declared innocent (and she was decalred innocent, not just "not guilty"), Amando Knox is no longer "tied to" the murder of Meredith Kercher. And there is no legal or logical reason to suppose that she is. No, Amanda's story iis that she was falsely railroaded to conviction by an inept and corrupt prosecuter who himself is under charges in another case (or didn't you know what?). Amanda's story is how an inocent young girl can very nearly have her life ruined through no fault of her own. To deny that and to trivialize what she went through, is to make her a victom too.98.118.62.140 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're the one who's wrong. According to this source Knox wasn't declared anything - the conviction was simply overturned, leaving open the possibility that prosecutors could appeal the decision to the Italian Supreme Court. If they do that, and it appears they will, the court could either uphold the decision or reinstate the conviction, resulting in possible extradition proceedings against Knox, and the resulting legal fight to prevent that. So you see, the case is far from "over" for Knox and Sollecito. Shirtwaist ☎ 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The redirect is a BLP violation. If she isn't notable enough to have an article about her, then there shouldn't be a redirect. Count Iblis (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Notable person in her own right. --regentspark (comment) 22:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum. An article like this one shows how far reality has moved from the one event of the murder of meredith kercher. This is no longer one event. --regentspark (comment) 20:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. As pointed out, Amanda Knox is far more notable than Kercher. There is a movie about her, there are books about her. Very much unlike Kercher. The article on the case should also include her name (a possible title could be Amanda Knox trial or Miscarriage of justice against Amanda Knox). Mocctur (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, absolutely not. That's an even worse POV title, and she wasn't the only defendant, you know. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Amanda's notability has built up over time and is a well documented case now, passes WP:BLP1E. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn OR rename the target article Murder trial or some such ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While Knox is not technically acquitted of murder until the appeals are exhausted, the scope of the trial seems to meet the criteria of a separate article per WP:BLP1E (the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented), WP:CRIME (sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources), and WP:BIO1E (the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate). This event is significant, front-page news, and Knox's role in the event was the primary focus of the majority of the coverage. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected. She's notable for nothing except this incident. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. As Scott Mac notes above, there is nothing in the proposed fork that is not already present (and better contextualised) in the existing article. Furthermore, uphold closure per the very heavy balance of views in the original XfD, which was correctly assessed by the closer. Jheald (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Surely, at the very least you'd agree the incident should be renamed to "murder trial"? Unless you can rationally express why the name Amanda Knox should redirect to her housemate's murder? Countercouper (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, obviously Amanda Knox has lost four years of her life and has had to go through the most horrible ordeal. So has Raffaele Sollecito. And the Italian forensic service has been shown up before the world, and been left with some very serious issues to face. And also the case must give strong cause for at least the routine tape- or video-recording of suspect interviews. But Meredith Kercher died. That is the event that put all of this into motion, and the article quite properly treats all of the events which have followed from that. The title of the article reflects that. Jheald (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There is no Deletion Policy reason to disallow this article. There is extensive long term coverage demonstrating notability. Whether the page should be a redirect is a question of editorial judgment, but given the stated intention of the subject to write a book, I believe that a stand alone article is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject is not a low profile person. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, with the one event (a killing) overwhelmed by persistent coverage is in reliable sources for court cases and years in jail. The multiple printed books overwhelmingly demonstrate notability of the subject. Today there is world-wide coverage and prediction of new books. To not have an article title on this person is to do a disservice to the readership. There is nothing we would present that cannot be easily found already; the difference is that we will probably present only the most reliable information, and fairly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal to redirect Amanda Knox to a new Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito seems sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – Will this be any different from the Murder of Meredith Kercher, or are we merely going to have this article merely for notability's sake (i.e. are we going to provide any additional substantive material that is not included in the murder article)? Moreover, if this overturned, I strongly suggest semi-protection due to the rather significant BLP concerns due to the ongoing media fallout. –MuZemike 02:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  My guess is that roughly half of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article belongs in a Knox article. From the "Knox and Sollecito trials and appeals" onward, most of the material is about Knox. There would also be other Knox specific material that has likely been kept out of the Murder article that could be included. Finally, any post appeal (and pre next appeal) material will also be better placed in an Amanda Knox article. --regentspark (comment) 12:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Close call - keep redirected for now - if Knox is no more than a victim of the Italian justice system, I think she should have the right to just try to regain anonymity and fade into the background. In that case much of the material in the current "Murder of ..." should eventually be removed, since it would be just one event for an otherwise non-notable person. On the other hand if she writes a book about her experiences, goes on a book tour, ...... , or joins the cast of "Dancing with the Stars," then (somewhere along this continuum of possibilities) it will be more than one event and she should have her own article. Please wait to she whether she tries to fade out, or in some way tries to increase her visibility. Smallbones (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she wants to be covered by the media or not is completely irrelevant. She has been covered by the media for the past 4 years, hence she is notable, hence there should be an article on her. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. WP:BLP1E does not prevent an article as there is a strong case that Knox is no longer famous for one event, and it is indisputable that she is not a low profile individual (both these two elements must be present for WP:BLP1E to discourage an article. An article on her could give relevant and notable biographical details as printed in the many books and articles about her, talk about her life in prison (as other similar articles do) and cover notable post-trial activities (movies (one with Colin Firth), interviews, etc.). The trials should be mentioned, but this should not become a content fork for the Murder of Meredit Kercher article. Semi-protection per above comments is probably a good idea.LedRush (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected per Tarc. The subject is only known for her involvement in the murder and the resulting legal processes. I challenge anyone arguing to overturn to list the other fields where she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --John (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting challenge, but an unnecessary one. WP:BLP1E discourages (not prohibits) articles on individuals if (1) they are notable for one event; and (2) they are low-profile individuals. It is increasingly hard to define the murder, the media reaction, the murder trial, the defamation trial, the civil trial, the appeal, the interviews, the books, the acquittal as one event. Even if you can convince yourself that is the case (despite huge numbers of precedents for similar articles on other crime articles), there is simply no argument that Knox is a low-profile individual. Remember, the policy states "It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Furthermore, "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." As some who have commented here against the article have noted in the past, Knox and her supporters have waged a very public media campaign, activiely seeking out much media attention at great expense.LedRush (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not quite got #2 right - better would be they are otherwise low-profile individuals - note the current wording: if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual A subtle distinction, but to pass BLP1E you need to show significance outside of the one event :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument on this ignores normal english construction rules and defies what the practice of Wikipedia actually is. Your interpretation reduces the second clause to no meaning at all. Furthermore, the tons of similar article about people less notable who first became famous (and primarily remain famous) for one event demonstrate that your reading of the policy is not the majority reading. Finally, it seems that your argument is explicitly refuted by the policy itself. It states "It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." This clearly indicates that the second prong of the test is independent of the first (meaning, if you're not low-profile, you're covered by WP:BIO1E and not WP:BLP1E).LedRush (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where that note was added, or by whom, but I was drawing your attention to the recent clarification which strengthens the intended meaning. If it is still not clear we can try to reword it again :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the policy is crystal clear now, as it explicitly refutes your position. If you're going to continue to drum up support to get consensus to change these policies, of course you can do that. It seems like a bad idea, though, as it doesn't comport with WP's core principles, in my view.LedRush (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part of that note that I assume is relevant to your argument - "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." - links to an essay describing opinions on what a "low profile individual" is. Where in that essay, which is definitely not WP policy, does it say Knox's situation should fall under the "High-profile" category? Shirtwaist ☎ 21:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, WP policies are the result of consensus, and any changes to them would also be the result of consensus, whether that consensus is "drummed up" or otherwise, unless you're using a different definition of "drummed up" than I am. So I'm pretty sure WP's core principles are OK with that. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected she's still not notable outside the crime and trial; if she does become so then it's reasonable to split the article, but that's not now. Also keep redirected purely to save editors having to waste their time cleaning up two articles rather than one; to be honest I unwatchlisted the article many months ago as it was clear that it was a complete time sink trying to keep it NPOV. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: User:Black Kite was the admin who protected the page and presumably spent a lot of time keeping the article balanced previously. Apparently it was abused "to campaign for her release and proclaim her innocence", but that is obviously no longer necessary so I am confident the article will be more stable, and in any case it's not a valid argument. -- samj _in^out 07:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's only background; my first sentence is my reason for not splitting. I also think we might get the problem of material being duplicated in both articles (and yes, I know that's not a reason either). Black Kite (t) (c) 10:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no reason why Amanda Knox shouldn't have her own article. The matter's attracted so much media coverage since 2007 that there's easily enough sources to justify this. Perpetrators, and accused perpetrators if you're American enough to think she might be innocent, can be notable in their own right if they generate enough coverage (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald).—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a question, though; if we have a BLP which basically contains only the information that this is an otherwise non-notable person who was found guilty of a crime and then acquitted - is that a good BLP to have? Don't forget that there's a lot of well-sourced negative information about Knox out there that could well end up in such a bio. Are we really doing her a favour by doing this? What would be better, perhaps, is to split the article into "Murder of..." and "Trial of Knox and Sollecito", etc. Just my 2p. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I certainly don't think we're doing Amanda Knox a favour by including her in the encyclopaedia, but then I also don't think we're here to make Amanda Knox happy. I think we're here to present a neutral summary of human knowledge. I think a naive person searching Wikipedia would expect to find that we have an article about Amanda Knox.—S Marshall T/C 19:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the "naive person searching Wikipedia [expecting] to find that we have an article about Amanda Knox" I agree with everything you've said, and ultimately we're here to serve our audience, not the subjects of our articles. -- samj _in^out 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I also don't think we're here to make Amanda Knox happy -- s marshall

WP:BLP has something to say about that: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" Shirtwaist ☎ 04:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. The important point in that sentence is "Biographies of living persons must be written," because we're an encyclopaedia. I agree that in writing it, we should have due regard to her privacy and not say anything that isn't already well and truly in the public domain.—S Marshall T/C 17:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I hardly think the phrase "Biographies of living persons must be written," was intended to promote the writing of biographies of living persons, do you? The implication of that sentence is that the decision to even create an article on a living person should take into account the effect it would have on the subject in addition to how such an article was written. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the concern about privacy is contained within the provision regarding a low-profile individual. Knox and her family court media attention and give press conferences. When you want your privacy, you don't give press conferences (generally). That is one of the many reasons why BLP1E does not apply to this situation. However, this would still be a BLP, and the article should be written conservatively, per BLP guidelines.LedRush (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which "provision regarding a low-profile individual" are you referring to? Shirtwaist ☎ 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say otherwise? There's nothing stopping you or anybody else from creating a new article on Knox. It might even avoid being AfDed, but I doubt it. I don't see any significant change since the last article on Knox was deleted redirected last year, but you're welcome to try. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I understand the disconnect here. Do you have me confused with someone whose position is "overturn"?—S Marshall T/C 12:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since this DRV is dealing with the question of keeping or overturning the redirect of an Amanda Knox article to MoMK, and your statement - "There's no reason why Amanda Knox shouldn't have her own article" - implies you favor Amanda Knox having her own article which an overturned redirect would result in, and since the only way Knox will have her own article is if the redirect is overturned...then yes, that was my assumption. Forgive me for misreading your position...whatever that position might be. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My position is exactly as stated in the first sentence of my first remark: There's no reason why Amanda Knox shouldn't have her own article. The article she has doesn't necessarily have to be this particular article, and I would not object if the decision was to create a fresh article rather than to restore.—S Marshall T/C 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...to create a fresh article rather than to restore - Others have suggested this, yet nobody has even tried to come up with anything more than a vague outline to propose, rather than an actual Knox article, one that wouldn't be redirected just like the current one was. This only strengthens my belief that such an article is unlikely to be written, let alone pass AfD, unless and until Knox does something notable outside the realm of the case. Just my opinion...I could be proven wrong though. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not surprising. It would be unnecessary work to prepare a draft article, in view of the strong consensus to overturn that appears below.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I would imagine that an Amanda Knox article would be similar to the biographies which currently exist about her in books and tv shows/movies. I would guess the article would go something like this:

• Lede
• Early Life, education, etc. (this is standard for just about any biography)
• Murder of Meredith Kercher. This would be a summarized version of the events surrounding the murder.
• Muder trial and appeal. A brief summary of the main case (perhaps merged with the events surrounding murder).
• Other related cases. This would allow us to take the cases which really aren't about the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and apply only to Knox and her family, to have a home. This would make both articles better, and much better serve the readers of an encyclopedia).
• Portrayal in Media. A survey of how the media has portrayed Knox in the Press. (this would focus on portrayals of Knox, not about the case. The MoMK article would talk about the portrayal of the case, not the individuals...again, making both articles better.
• Public reaction to Knox. The disparate and differing opinions/camps regarding Knox.
• Portrayal in Popular Culture. This could also include references to the biographies, books, TV shows, and films about Knox.
• Life in prison. Similar to the Mendoza brothers. There have been tons of article about this, though I'd imagine this section would be very brief
• Life after acquittal; (TBD)

There is enough here for a very meaty article, and certainly an article more substantive than many, many other ones on Wikipedia (yes, yes, other stuff exists). Most importantly, the early life and portrayal in popular culture sections are wholly inappropriate for the current MOMK article, and the public reaction and media sections cannot be fleshed out as in the MoMK as they could be in a Knox article for various reasons (not only because of WP: Undue, but because they would bog down the article and make it read worse). Seeing as there is a lot of content not available on wikipedia because it cannot (and should not) be shoe-horned into this article, and seeing as the information clearly does not trigger WP:BLP1E concerns, there is no reason not to have this article. That a Knox article would make the MoMK article a ton better is just added gravy.LedRush (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirected; nothing good could come from the fork - except the obvious hagiography. This can be dealt with within the event article at this stage & an article on Knox is distinctly infair to her. Seeing as she currently stands not guilty of the murder we should be reducing content related to her :) not increasing it. Anything prior to the murder is private content we will not be featuring. Anything subsequent may become relevant if she decides to pursue a public life - until then let's wait. An Amanda Knox article is pointless and duplicative. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW I also think that if we are going to fork this (which long term is the sensible solution) it is better to go with a "Trial of..." article to avoid BLP issues. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirected per Errant. Creating an "Amanda Knox" article would seem to me to be more of a BLP issue than a simple redirect, as the only notable events that would appear there would all have to do with...her being accused and acquitted of murdering Meredith Kercher! What else is there to say there right now? That she was a student? If Knox voluntarily enters the public arena in the future and does something notable, then we can discuss overturning the redirect. Shirtwaist ☎ 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected per Tarc. Knox is only known for events closely related to Meredith's murder; WP:BLP1E applies here. Her biography would only contain material connected with the murder (or, worse, be something like this)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak allow recreation, as a short stub-like article. Not because of notability consideration – because in fact she still is notable only insofar as she is connected to the Kercher case – but because of the BLP consideration that a direct redirect to the murder article might still suggest her being implicated in the murder itself (rather than just in the case). This article should contain little more than "... is an American woman who became known as a suspect in the murder case of Meredith Kercher. In a trial that attracted worldwide media attention, she was acquitted of the charge of murder on appeal, after having served four years in prison." Leave all the rest to be treated in the murder article. If she does anything notable in her future life, the article can of course be expanded. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected based on the arguments of Black Kite, Errant, John, Salvio, Shirtwaist, Tarc... At this point, one can quite confidently bet that the moment the full protection on the redirect is removed and the article expanded, within hours it will once again be under protection (whether that be semi- or something stronger). Added to this, the potential for duplication and content-forking remains. If a sub-article is warranted, I agree with Errant that the formulation "Trial(s) of (Amanda) Knox and (Raffaele) Sollecito" is preferable. SuperMarioMan 14:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - She has a book about her that isn't about the murder, for one thing. Meets all policy requirements by a long shot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What book's that??? A cookery book or something? --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Apparently some Italian bigwig became smitten, and created a book of interviews. It also includes some of her writing, so she's a published author now. It's not self published, in case anyone is wondering. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was the second book about Amanda as a person. The first was an Italian book recently translated into English "Walking with Amanda". The whole point of BLP is not to allow wikipedia to slander people, connecting her whole life to Kercher is precisely doing that. 173.61.131.78 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good source to put meat on the bones of my skeleton article above. Plus it adds to the inevetal conclusion that this falls outside of "one event" and that she is not a low-profile individual.LedRush (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about the murder, true, but it is about a series of interviews while she was in prison for ... the murder. Show me what she has done apart from the murder case and related activities, and I will happily change my mind. --John (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People wanted something not about the murder. It is found. The goal posts are moved. Whatev. "Apart from the murder case and related activities" can mean whatever one wants. This may not be you, but most people who are voting against an article would prefer that coverage doesn't exist. It's not that they've looked at the coverage and and made an impartial judgement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Show me what Neil Armstrong has done apart from flying to the moon..." ;-). Seriously, with several books published about her, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice question; of course Armstrong was a naval aviator in the Korean War, then flew F-104s and rocket planes as a test pilot, then took part in the Gemini program, all before he went to the Moon on Apollo 11. Afterwards he took part in the investigation of the Challenger disaster. Any one of these things would make him sufficiently notable for our purposes, even if he had never gone to the Moon. Amanda Knox, on the other hand, is known for her jail time for the murder, her publicity campaign against the sentence, and her acquittal. I don't see that in quite the same vein. What has she done outside of her involvement in the case which makes her notable? --John (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing she's 'her conviction and it's subsequent overturning' has started a debate about the court system in Italy [1], [2]. It's not the willful acts of a person that make them notable for inclusion in wikipedia, rather it is reliable sources that define notability. If reliable sources focus on an individual, then so do we. For better or for worse, the Knox story has gone far beyond the murder itself and we should follow suit - even before the inevitable book(s) and made for tv movie(s). --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No she hasn't "started a debate about the court system in Italy". She hasn't said a word about it. The murder case appears to have done that. That's a good illustration of why a fork isn't needed. The encyclopaedic content belongs in the parent article, rather than being split off so as to make Knox inappropriately (from her POV as well as anyone else's) the centre of the story. Enclopaedic content about Knox but not connected to the murder and the subsequent trials would belong in a separate bio, except there isn't any such content.--FormerIP (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FormerIP. The debate is evidence that the murder case itself might be notable. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right and I modified my statement above. However, the point remains. Her trial, conviction, appeals, and release are independent of the original murder because of the issues that they have spawned. The debate I refer to above, for example, is because of the way her appeal went, not because of the murder. The various reports about media portrayal (in the NYT (e.g., [3]) as well as in the Guardian) are about the Knox trials, not about the murder. Other than the fact that all this is a child of the murder, arguing that the entire Knox hoopla should be included in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article is bizarre. Call it The trials of Amanda Knox of The Knox Case or whatever, but this is where the meat of the story is. --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're correct, to the extent that we normally treat a crime and a trial connected to the crime as one event, unless you can think of and example where it is otherwise. As for articles titled something other than Amanda Knox, as I commented below there is no need for a deletion review discussion in order to achieve that if it's merited due to article size. --FormerIP (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's never going to be a perfect example because every case is different. For example, we have an article on Mumia Abu-Jamal but not the Murder of Daniel Faulkner because Abu-Jamal is known as a death row inmate. He hasn't really done anything (re John above) but his story has grown beyond the initial crime and he has become a symbol of the anti-death penalty movement in the US. Like I said, it's an imperfect example but, to a similar extent, Amanda Knox's story has gone beyond the initial crime as well. Arguing that none of this would have happened without the crime is a weak, very very weak argument because nothing in this world occurs independently of something else. (Facetiously speaking, the entire encyclopedia would have to be under The Big Bang if we take that argument to its extreme (joke)!) --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mumia Abu-Jamal example actually fits with policy. "...if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material". If there was no MoMK article, then there might be no problem with an AK article. The difficulty arises because there would seem to be nothing in the existing article that merits taking out and putting elsewhere on the grounds that it not related to the title. Similarly, there's nothing in the existing article that couldn't properly belong in an AK article. This is because the MoMK story and the AK story cover precisely the same ground, although each might suggest a very slightly different emphasis from the other. What we don't need is two articles covering exactly the same thing but from different points-of-view. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "Knox and the media" fits in the existing article. Are you suggesting that, up to now, it should not have been there? It's an obviously significant aspect to the story. The practical problem is not so much about POV and BLP issues - there is no way of avoiding that whatever is done - but the idea that it is appropriate to have two rival versions of the same indivisible story in the encyplopaedia. Wikipedia UK edition and Wikipedia US edition, if you like. The differing perspectives should be held together in the same article. Because, regardless of which name a user types in, they are looking for exactly the same information. --FormerIP (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it shouldn't be in that article because it is separate from the murder because it is about Knox and not about the murder. However, perhaps we're just emphasizing the same thing differently (you say banana and I say banana sort of thing). At some point, every incident has the inherent capability to fork into two meaningfully distinct articles and, I guess, different editors will see that as occurring at different points of time. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Amanda Knox article would not have the same information as the MoMK article. Please see the proposed outline above.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how would that be enforced? The natural (and correct) aspiration for editors working on both articles would be to include all encyclopaedic info relating to the topic - i.e. to produce two versions of the same article. --FormerIP (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the section of the Knox article dealing with the trial would merely be a summary, with a clear link at the top bringing people to the full article. It would work the same as in every other biography where someone has been involved in events which merit their own articles.LedRush (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected. At present there is not enough encylopaedic material to justify a separate article. Those who want one should add tedious biographical detail to her section in the parent article until it bursts and a spinoff is required, or else just wait for her to become a judge on America's Got Talent. Also WP:CRIME continues to apply, because her acquittal is not yet definitive and there seems to be a chance that is a bit more than theoretical that she could be re-convicted. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Making a decision now based on what may or may not happen in the future sounds like a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. -- samj _in^out 00:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Knox's case is actually still in process, until the prosecution announce that they are dropping it. WP:CRIME applies not because of anything that might happen in the future, but because of the subject's legal status. It's not the main reason to keep the redirect, though. --FormerIP (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Amanda Knox. MoMK is a useless POV battleground and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Pertinent facts are deliberately excluded and few of those voting have done anything to make it better. Put it out of its misery I beg you. (this is not sarcasm or irony Strauss) Brmull (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If anything is "an embarrassment to Wikipedia" it's that we don't have an article our audience (myself included, hence the DRV) expects to be here. -- samj _in^out 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirected as Knox is not known outside the events related to the murder and subsequent trials. If that changes then we could revisit this. Best to let the dust settle before evaluating this...at the present it looks like a separate article would just be a content fork.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the specific suggestion of an article that wouldn't be a content fork. Which could be helped by the book on Knox that does not deal with the murder of meredith kercher at all....LedRush (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We need an Amanda Knox article - This entire exlusionary debate is silly. Meredith is dead and that story will not grow anymore - it's done. But Amanda's story is very much alive. How was it that she was railroaded? Is this kind of travesty common in Italy? Etc. Etc. The simple fact is that there is a LOT of Amanda Knox related information on the internet now, and the logical place to write about the notable aspects of her experience, is in an Amanda Knox article. Suffice it to say, I am posting as an IP because I do not want the partisan deletionists to take note of my ID. The frothing rage opposed to an Amada Knox article is like nothing I've seen on this wiki in ovr 7 years - and I've seen some crazy stuff happen... 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that. –MuZemike 05:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - It's utterly ridiculous that the subject of the biggest news story in the world does not have a Wikipedia article. 24.5.68.9 (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's ridiculousIssymo (talk)

You're wrong. It does have a Wikipedia article and "Amanda Knox" redirects there. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirected. Until Amanda Knox has done something other than:

a) Been accused of Meredith Kercher’s murder.

b) Been Arrested for Meredith Kercher’s murder.

c) Been (falsely) Convicted of Meredith Kercher’s murder.

d) Been Acquitted of Meredith Kercher’s murder.

At the moment Why else is she notable? What else has she done? Jalipa (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand notability. Notabiltiy does not hinge solely on what one has personally accomplished in life. Notabiltiy hinges on whether or not the media is taking note of you, your actions or your story. A person with an interesting personal story, becomes notable in the media and that's what's happnened here. Undeserved media attention is still media attention. The media seems to agree. Read this from CBS 10/05/11 "Amanda Knox left Seattle as an anonymous junior attending Washington's flagship public university, and on Tuesday she returned as someone whose release from an Italian jail made her internationally recognizable." People want to know more about Amanda Knox's story and we need an article to help them do that. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that just prove the BLP1E case? "her release from jail made her famous". Her notability is, at present, solely linked to this case and the article covers it adequately. Nothing else about Knox is notable and, given a few months, the whole thing could be gone and forgotten - unless Knox does something else to establish her notability. It is, quite simply, too soon to determine whether this is just a passing interest or whether Knox will establish notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I find several books about her here, some of which contain substantial biographical information. She is the subject of a docudrama, Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy, and, as for international coverage, there are 22000 hits on Google News Deutschland. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I know I said "Keep redirected", but actually, is this even the right forum for this? The previous AfD redirected the previous version of the article not only on BLP1E grounds but mainly because it was, to speak bluntly, complete bollocks. The version being proposed now is clearly not bollocks, even if it may have other issues. Should not the request have been to unprotect the target (which I am required to do if asked in these circumstances), rather than overturn the AfD which was about a completely different article? Just a thought. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I was wondering about that too. The original AfD was more than a year ago and a lot has happened since then. Perhaps the right course of action is to put up a new article and let that go to AfD if anyone wants to do that. I've commented above so I'm not going to unprotect it but any 'brave soul' admin can go ahead and do so. --regentspark (comment) 13:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Since the original discussion, a film and several books focusing on Amanda Knox have been released, and after fours years she remains in the media spotlight as one of the world's most famous people. There are simply no valid policy-based reasons to oppose the existence of this article at this point (except for I don't like Amanda of course). There are tons of articles on people involved in criminal cases who are way less famous. Mocctur (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Black Kite - The point of this DRV is to discuss whether the decision to redirect this article to "MOMK" should be endorsed or overturned. If it's overturned, that is the article that people searching for "Amanda Knox" will be directed to, not any proposed article. I'm not sure why Samj informed you instead of MuzeMike, the admin who closed the original AfD before listing it here. According to WP:DRV, Samj also should've discussed it with the AfD's closing admin before listing here, which was not done. It's probably a good idea to note that comments in this DRV should follow these guidelines. Shirtwaist ☎ 02:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies — I had initially wanted to get the page unprotected but was told DRV would be more appropriate and got the admins confused. -- samj _in^out 13:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected. I believe the very premise of the deletion review is incorrect. WP:CRIME doesn't actually apply, because she is neither the victim or, given the acquittal, the person who committed the crime. However, if we use some liberty and extend WP:CRIME to include other platers in the criminal event and its aftermath, including those accused of the crime, but later acquitted, then we could read WP:CRIME as "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes or a person accused of a crime and later acquitted should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person." If we can assume that WP:CRIME does apply to this situation, then it seems completely clear that Knox would not warrant an article in her own right, given that she has done absolutely nothing notable except be involved in this event - and the event, and Knox's involvement therein, is well-covered by the article to which "Amanda Knox" redirects. WP:TOOSOON may certainly apply - she may well use her publicity to achieve notability in her own right, but this has not yet happened. WP:BLP1E is less clear, in my opinion. Clearly, Knox has received an very significant amount of coverage as a result of her involvement in the one event for which she may be considered notable. Again, I would argue that WP:TOOSOON may apply. I can foresee that, while she is very much the focus of attention today, that the next sensational news story that captures the public's imagination may very well see her fade into oblivion unless, of course, she does something to maintain her public profile - in which case she may have something outside this one event for which she will be notable and WP:BLP1E no longer applies. In summary, I see no urgency to create a seperate article - the "encyclopedicly relevant" aspects of Knox are well-covere in the redirect article and I think, on balance, we can simply wait and see what happens next. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point, which is: The deletionist sentiment which is opposed to an Amanda Knox article has no valid justification. The very rule you cite says this: "if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person". The "available encyclopaedic material" relating to Ms. Knox is enormous in quantity and is increasing everyday. There is no rational reason to oppose an article for Ms. Knox. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess one person's "encyclopedic content" is another's "trivial junk". Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP - I think you're misreading that sentence. It's clearly saying that if there is already an article that includes encyclopaedic material about Amanda Knox (i.e. MOMK), someone notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes (or in this case a person convicted of a crime which was later overturned - Knox) should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OVERTURN New article titled Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I would like to see the Murder of Meredith Kercher article remain. It is a notable murder. However, there should be a simple line that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were originally convicted but it was overturned and a link to the new article. The two do not deserve to be associated with this murder any more than needed because they have been acquitted. Issymo (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Amanda Knox is notable in her own right as the victim of a poorly executed investigation. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that miscarriages of justice can be noteworthy, apart from the crimes that are used to wrongly jail the innocent? The precedent for an accused person having a stand-alone article was established here long ago. Note that there is a Damien Echols Wiki entry. How is this different?Christaltips (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There seem to be quite a few editors voting "overturn" because they would like to see the creation of some article other than Amanda Knox. Those seem to me to be mistaken votes. You don't need to overturn the decision on that article in order to create a new article with a different title - just go ahead and do it. Someone will launch an AfD if they object. --FormerIP (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. This is simply not what BLP1E was intended to do, or how an encyclopedia would best serve its users. The language of BLP1E is really cautionary rather than prescriptive, and none of the values it is intended to protect are served by the absence of a discrete article on the person on whom this discussion centers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

‎*Overturn - GoodGravy, She is notable ! Turn on your TV!--Truth Mom 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Wow.. Cant tell you how good it feels to reach this day. Welcome home, Amanda! I see this "debate" is breaking along the usual lines. I'll save a lot of typing and simply concur with all that's been written above by other 'overturn' supporters (LedRush, et al). I see the usual suspects are going to drag their feet over this past the point of all reason.. I suggest that we've reached the point where Jimbo Wales needs to be imposed upon once again to step in an appoint a nuetral admin to forcibly push this article into line with the standards and policies evident in the rest of Wiki.. Sour grapes is very unbecoming, guys.. Amanda was found not just 'not guilty'.. but 'innocent of the crime' by the Italian court. Accept it and lets move on. Meredith's memorial page can finally be maintained in a proper, respectful manner, and Amanda's page can finally tell her story honestly. Ciao! Tjholme (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)— Tjholme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't you mean an admin who will agree with you? –MuZemike 03:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Extremely notable. There is significant sources books and proposed movies about her. Its wrong that its redirected to a page of a crime she is currently not convicted of albeit there may be an appeal. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Foxy Knoxy will be reunited with Raffaele as he prepares to fly to Seattle, reveals her father barely mentions MoMK in passing but covers her reuniting with ex-boyfriends in detail, which is a fly in the ointment for those still pointing at WP:BLP1E. If you prefer more reliable sources, try Matthew Wright apologises over Amanda Knox gaffe or Amanda Knox book? What publishing insiders have to say or For Amanda Knox, freedom comes at hefty cost. -- samj _in^out 23:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I know arguments of this type are generally discouraged, but there are articles for Amy Fisher, Joey Buttafuoco, John and Lorena Bobbitt, Susan Smith, Elizabeth A. Smart, Chandra Levy, Rodney King, Randy Weaver, Larry Platt, and I could go on and on. I would challenge anyone to prove these peoples' notability beyond their individual "one incident" that wouldn't similarly apply to Amanda Knox. It's a nonsense argument that flies in the face of WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:BIO1E. Just looking at the General Notability Guidelines:

1. Significant coverage: Yes.
2. Reliable: Yes.
3. Sources: Yes.
4. Independent of the subject: Yes.
5. Presumed: Yes

The notability of this individual is no longer entirely encapsulated within the confines of the actual murder. Her notability relates primarily to the trial and the large amount of media coverage surrounding said trial (which is why we have O. J. Simpson murder case not Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson). The trial and the murder are now two separate events, after Knox's conviction was overturned, and redirecting her to the murder alone is inherently misleading, and as it stands, redirecting Knox to Murder of Meredith Kercher violates WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:CRITERIA. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DRVs should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where the page in question has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hold off until they make a telemovie about her. No, wait - they've done that already. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is asinine. An administrator needs to just pull the trigger already and create the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Overturn I thought about closing it now, rather than giving an opinion, but opinion seems still to be divided beyond what I would have expected. My own opinion is that WP:CRIME is inapplicable because of one key word in the first sentence of that guide "normally". There is now much more than "normal" coverage of someone accused of a crime. BLP is irrelevant: how any one can think anything written on Wikipedia can give her prominence more than is already the case seems remarkably absurd. But I will say the the people wanting to have this article to do justice to her are just as absurd now as before the appeal. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. The people opposing the separate article are in my opinion just as absurd--they're using narrow interpretations of flexible rules to try to defeat common sense. BTW, we do need a decision here to have a separate article, since the redirect is protected, Nobody can "just go ahead and make an article". Del Rev is an appropriate place to deal with special cases like this. The applicable principle is NOT OSTRICH, a different meaning from the current WP:OSTRICH, which I think would be better called THINK FIRST. I mean here, not hiding ourselves from what the world thinks is obvious. the absurdity is indicated by the fact that a film with the tile beginning Amanda Know... is clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment about the film title, above. It almost supports the redirect - Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial - "The murder on trial" is exactly the article where "Amanda Knox" redirects. The movie's very title seems to suggest that Knox is notable only for her involvement in the events discussed in the redirect article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - According to WP:DRV, there are only four possible decisions here: Endorse the original closing (or redirect) decision, Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion), List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted, and Overturn the original decision (remove the redirect) and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. So I believe your opinion that "there needs to be a separate article" would fall under "Overturn", correct?

Since you think a separate article is necessary, I'll ask you a question someone asked earlier: "Is there notable, encyclopedic material about the subject that doesn't belong on the page about the case?" For clarity, this was the last version of the "Amanda Knox" article before it was protected and redirected, and this is a proposed version of a new article. Do you see anything in either of those versions that warrants a separate article, and wouldn't fit easily into the MOMK article (anything that isn't already there, I mean)? Shirtwaist ☎ 08:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, technically it's "overturn"--and that's what i said in bold face at the beginning of the comment. But Del Rev has always considered itself able to reach whatever conclusions suits the merits of the case, and you will find a very high proportion of closes which are variants of the ones you list. This is usually considered an administrative process and as a final review process receiving broad attention in the community, it's in an excellent position to apply NOT BURO and IAR when needed--much more so than an individual admin would ever be. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm sure you have much more experience with DRV than I, all I have to go on is reading the policy itself. But I'm interested to hear your answer to my questions above regarding a separate article. Shirtwaist ☎ 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the material at Murder of Meredith Kercher, about Knox & Sollecito and their trials, imprisonment, appeals, does not belong there. If these people didn't do it, then the content does not relate directly to the murder or to Kercher. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is taking a very narrow view of "related" Information about a person formally accused of a crime with respect to their background as well as their claimed connection to the crime is information related to the crime. All the more so when there's been a conviction followed by a reversal on appeal. Other than a work discussing purely the technical legal aspects, writing about the rime or the trial necessarily involves information about the participants. We do not make a judgement about who committed the crime. We report the verdict(s) and the commentary on the trial and the verdicts. The basic information therefore about all the participants belongs in the article. In the case of this particular individual, the amount of information and commentary is so great as to provide justification for a separate article also. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW the proposed version is just the last version sans the AfD template and quickly scanned for BLP violations (e.g. updated to say she had been acquitted). As an uninvolved editor who was just looking for information about this notable young woman untainted by the murder I'd be equally happy with a stub. -- samj _in^out 13:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected for now anyway. DGGs view covering the word "normally" has a certain persuasion about it, however from my view point much of the coverage and interest to date is part of the media/publicity campaign still centred around the crime. If over the coming months Knox stands back from the public aspect of this and chooses to disappear into obscurity then realistically she will on long term notability be just be an "actor" in the criminal case, the BLP argument will have teeth. On the other hand if the publicity is maintained and Knox actively participates in that, then a standalone article is completely reasonable. i.e. up to this point the person in question has had limited influence in their public profile --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn -- currently a disgrace to Wikipedia. From WP:BLP1E: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Amanda Knox's trial, appeal, and life have been persistently covered in the media since the murder four years ago. The fact that there is no "Amanda Knox" article makes me lose faith in Wikipedia. Westeros1994 (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to get one shortly, so knock it off. –MuZemike 13:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am worried by the new inefficiency of the usual meatpuppets on this issue - a whole two days to turn up en masse? You've usually been quicker than that. I'm disappointed in you, fellas. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think she ticks any of the usual meat sock activist boxes any more - shes free, announced not guilty so all those supporters are already satisfied, they care if she is free, not if she has a website biography. Shes not from new york and shes not LGBT or Jewish, so all you have left is run of the mill users that think she is notable enough for her own article or as a minimum - the removal of the redirect and a stub as suggested for BLP considerations considering the not guilty of the murder she is currently directed to . Off2riorob (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You claim that Knox isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Should the 130 articles in the American female murderers [4] category be deleted? Your actions are fundamentally against the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, Protected redirects page does not list Amanda Knox because you have chosen not to add to the page. Westeros1994 (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would we want to delete 130 articles on female murderers because there's a dispute whether someone who apparently isn't a murderer is notable or not? I have no idea what you mean with your snarky remark about "the spirit of Wikipedia", which I'll just ignore - but I'll give you an example of why such people may not be automatically notable. Search for Myra Hindley - probably the most famous British murderess ever, and see where it takes you. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• That is the first time I have ever seen the {{R protected}} template, so before you hint at any bad faith over a technicality; also, I tend to look at the database reports on stuff like that, such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely fully protected articles (in which the redirect is listed) as that is automatically-generated and much less prone to human error. –MuZemike 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected. I seem to be in the minority on this one, but I'm with Errant above - 'nothing good could come from the fork'. While I don't believe policy forbids a separate article on Knox, it would raise potentially serious BLP issues, and I believe we'd be better off keeping the coverage of her as a subsection of the main article. In general, having separate articles on living people accused or convicted of serious crimes strikes me as a bad idea, especially when they were wrongly convicted. (Although the case was markedly different, I'd like to note that we don't have a separate article on Casey Anthony, and nor should we - and that trial was almost as well publicised as this one.) I just don't think a separate article in this case is likely to serve Wikipedia: what additional material should it contain that isn't in the main article already? Robofish (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my article outline above for information on what info would be in a Knox article that isn't in the MoMK one, and for my reasons that this would make both article better, and better serve the readers here.LedRush (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having an actual example of a proposed article, such as was done here, would serve your argument better than showing us a mere outline. So far, Samj's is the only proposed article presented so far, and even that is identical to the target itself with the exception of the latest event in the case. Shirtwaist ☎ 18:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the proposed article faces continued attacks from people who think the topic is undeserving, I doubt it makes sense to spend 20 hours making an article against which some people are entrenched regardless of content. Surely we should be able to discuss the concepts, agree in principle, and then implement the agreement.LedRush (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn -- the idea that she is not notable is preposterous on its face. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Trial of Amanda Knox  The person remains a low-profile individual, and a biography would open the door (as LedRush documents above) to non-encyclopedic material such as her early life.  However, there is a need for a focused article regarding the American student caught up in the Italian legal system, whose story was so compelling that it became a movie.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments exist as part of Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Split apart sections of the article into Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, here.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I've prepared a stubbed version of the article at User:SamJohnston/Amanda_Knox_(stubbed) which strips most of the forked MoMK material and references some of the post-acquittal news (per User:Shirtwaist's comments above). -- samj _in^out 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing to create an article on permanent full protect? Or else what's the point of creating it as a stub? --FormerIP (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry guys, I'm not seeing this. All the coverage we have is still about Knox in the context of the murder trial, which to me is still only one event despite having gone through several different phases. That said, the trial seems to be notable independently of the murder, so keep redirected but create an article on Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (not Trial of Amanda Knox, which would only be half the story). Alzarian16 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that if this article is to not be remade that a article should be made for the trail which is notable enough for a stand alone article at this time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm not convinced that any split to the existing article is needed at all, this proposal makes a million percent more sense. The problem with Kercher/Knox is that it seems like two rival titles for exactly the same article. Spinning off the trials from the wider story would give a much clearer sense of two distinct articles where certain information clearly belongs here and other information clearly belongs there. --FormerIP (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I stated that a long way up the page. That is clearly the way to go until the appeals are settled. The hagiographies can wait. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe this course would doesn't accomplish much. (1) It still doesn't provide a reader with access to the notable biographical information that one would expect on Knox (please see my suggested outline above); (2) The separation between a Knox and MoMK trial is much, much cleaner and clearer than the separation of MoMK and a Trials article. Point #2 probably resonates more with Black Kite and FormerIP, so I'll focus on that. The trials are inextricably linked to the murder, and I don't think you can tell the story of one without telling how the stories formed in the trials. The same is not true for Knox. You can provide very brief summaries of the trials in the knox story (with links to MoMK) while still give the other biographical information about her. You could even (and I believe it would be preferable to) break out the Knox specific trials and deal with them primarily in the Knox article, with only brief mentions in the MoMK trial (seeing as they aren't as directly related to the underlying event. I feel like much of the resistance to a Knox article is based on inertia. This is an opportunity to make the MoMK much better, in addition to providing an article that many readers simply expect to find on an encyclopedia.LedRush (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The separation between a Knox and MoMK trial is much, much cleaner and clearer than the separation of MoMK and a Trials article" pretty much covers it. -- samj _in ^out 23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct, though. If you have an MoMK article with a paragraph summary of the trials and then spinoff articles, you know where you are. If you have one article for MoMK and one for AK, you have great difficulty in deciding what information goes where, because its only common sense that all information should go in both. --FormerIP (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. I said that the MoMK article would have the main story of the murder trials, but that the other, smaller trials which aren't covered deeply and which don't directly relate to the murder would go to Knox's biographical article (as it directly related to Knox, and not the murder). There is a very clear line of where info would go, and it should be quite easy to separate. The opposite is true if you try and separate one of the main murder trials from MoMK while leaving another in there. You simply cannot tell the story of the murder and subsequent trials that way.LedRush (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. There's practically nothing notable about Knox that isn't to do with the murder and trial. Which means that all the information belongs there, and it would be duplicated. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is my point. My proposed Knox article would be almost entirely information that is not directly related to the murder, which should be the main focus of the MoMK article. As explained, there is nothing that would be duplicated, and the process of splitting what would go where is as simple as can be. The opposite is true if you present a Knox Trial article, which would directly conflict with the MoMK one, be incredibly messy, and not include the other biographical information about Knox covered heavily in Reliable Sources and typically used in every other biography of this sort.LedRush (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting splitting a "Knox Trial" article from the MoMk article. That would make no sense at all. Ask yourself this: Would anyone even consider creating an article on Knox if she was not involved in the murder case? As has been pointed out numerous times here, Knox has done absolutely nothing to date worthy of note no matter how many sources talk about her (irrelevant) background. Therefore, the appropriate place for any sourced info about her is in the MoMK, which as some here have suggested, should probably be renamed "Trials of Knox and Sollecito" or some such. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people suggesting just that, both here and on the MoMK article page. I agree it doesn't make sense. No matter how many times you state that Knox hasn't done anything notable outside of the murder, you're can't change the fact that the media is paying attention to it, independent of the murder. The interest in her for the rest of her life will always come back to the murder, but the reason she remains notable is a compiliation of many events. Just as we would never follow the details of Elizabeth Smart if she wasn't a kidnapping victim, or Chelsea Clinton if she wasn't part of the first family. But they are, and we do. The same is true of Knox. She was involved in the murder, and now even the unrelated activities she engages in are notable. So, now we have all this notable information that simply doesn't belong in a MoMK article (as her side trials don't belong, either). It makes no sense to deny the readers of Wikipedia the encyclopedic content they would expect. Furthermore, there is no policy justification for such denial.LedRush (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2011(UTC)

You're overlooking two very important facts re: Smart and Clinton - after their respective events, they both have actively sought media attention, and they have both done notable things independent of the original events. It is much too soon after the fact for Knox to have done either of those. As for your last point, the fact that we are discussing this at DRV as a result of an AfD decided primarily, according to the closing admin, on WP:BLP1E, WP:POVFORK, and WP:ITSNOTABLE seems to refute your argument. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is simply not true about Smart (and doesn't seem likely to be true about Clinton, either). Smart's activities simply would not be notable if not for her kidnapping. Furthermore, Knox holds press conferences, gives interviews, and has actively sought the media attention for almost four years, and after release it has not slowed.

• Comment It occurred to me that the real focus of all the attention generated by this case really has very little to do with Amanda Knox. The real center of attention is the ineptness and apparent malfeasance of the prosecution in the original trial, and it's effect on an apparently innocent girl and her boyfriend. This could've happened to anyone, but the fact that it happened to a sweet and innocent American girl instead of a local one was the twist. Kercher's death was tragic, but frankly, nobody cares that Guede was justly convicted and sent to prison for it. The important aspects of this story are the murder, accusation, trial, conviction, and overturning of same. Amanda Knox's only notability stems from the fact that she got caught up in this unholy mess, not that she herself or the attention piled onto her by the eager press is necessarily "notable". Every bit of coverage Knox got stemmed directly from the murder and it's consequences, so why would such a person who is absolutely non-notable - except for her involvement in the case - need a separate article? The answer, to me, is clearly "she doesn't". The fact that a book is being used to demonstrate her notability, written by someone who resembles a stalker who describes dreams he's had of him and Amanda Knox, is laughable. Therefore, I would agree with those proposing that MoMK be called Trial of Amanda Knox or something similar, as the murder, while important, seems to be far overshadowed by that circus of a trial and it's subsequent appeal. When Knox does something herself worth noting (i.e. not getting caught up in something else), she'll deserve a separate article. Until then, everything currently notable about her can easily fit into the current article. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are the 10s of thousands of articles that discuss her and the trial. I could probably find you 10s or 100s that discuss her separately from the trial (but lack of coverage isn't really what people don't like about a separate article, so it's not worth the trouble). But, the book is shorthand for extreme notability. Having an entire book about a subject is about as good as it gets. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But "extreme notability" is not a concept that WP has, just notability, then BLP1E and CRIME. This is comparable to Casey Anthony or Myra Hindley, which have not been split off on the grounds of extreme notability. --FormerIP (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Casey Anthony redirect is (in my opinion) a IAR situation where people hate tabloid journalism so much, that even when picked up by 1000s of non tabloid articles, they are willing to go against policies and guidelines. Never heard of the other. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not IAR. It's what you do when you take an objective look at policy rather than getting overexcited because something dominated the news for a couple of days. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think multiple years is a couple of days, then you should just invoke IAR. No reason for so much intellectual contortion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-Remove Redirect I am AGAINST any redirect for the name Amanda Knox to be lead to the murder that she was acquitted of. Typing Amanda Knox should bring up an article about HER or her wrongful conviction. I favor an article Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. If someone does a search for Meredith Kercher it should go to the MOMK page. There could be links on each seperate article to eachother. In the Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article there could be a link - to learn more about the Murder of Meredith Kercher click here. On the MOMK article a link - to learn more about the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito click here. One example I could give for a similar article is ERIC VOLZ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Volz. Eric Volz was wrongfully convicted in Nicaragua and wrote a book about his experience. He has become an author and speaker against wrongful convictions. Eric's article is simply his NAME, instead of Wrongful Conviction of Eric Volz. It is a biography article and he is less famous. Amanda Knox from reports will also be writing a book about her experience. In reality I think we need two new ariticles Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. I think the priority should be on the article about the trial. If it is later deemed that she deserves a biography article also that could be created. The redirect for her name to the MOMK article should be removed though. She is acquitted and her name should not be directed to MOMK.Issymo (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect of "Amanda Knox" to a new article Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito would lead to an encyclopedic viewpoint.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that note I have added the proposed split to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Split apart sections of the article into Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and write a good article under a title that doesn't confuse our readers. I don't see the need to rehash the arguments above. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A 'good' article is the sticking point for me here. I don't see any benefit in undeleting this article as it was, with its photos of flower-picking maidens etc, it actually held little of any value which is not in the Murder of ... article.  pablo 08:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why I proposed a stubbed version: User:SamJohnston/Amanda_Knox_(stubbed). -- samj _in^out 09:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• and that is why I have proposed an outline. I don't think we should be making policy decisions about what might happen if all WP rules are ignored.LedRush (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• and that is why I never make policy decisions about what might ... whatever you said. I don't think so anyway!
  I still cannot see, however, that there is a viable non-stub, independent of the murder for which Knox was arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, jailed, successfully appealed and was ultimately released. Even with the side-trips of the defamation trial etc. Young people don't tend to have done a lot of stuff that's interesting. However, good luck with it.  pablo 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rough count: Over 70% in favour of overturning. There is obviously no consensus to delete/exclude this article at all, she is extremely notable and everyone knows it. No relevant policy has been cited which supports the exclusion of this article. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that she is notable and covered by reliable sources such as dozens of biographies/books and even a film, and sustained media coverage for four years now. I suggest we just go ahead and create it, and if someone disagrees, they can take it to AfD. Mocctur (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Stephan Schulz. BLP1E is used as a club here to deny that there is substantial biographical information about her, sufficient to write an article beyond "A.K. was an alleged perpetrator who has been wrongfully convicted". BLP1E is meant to prevent skewed stubs where little else is known about a person besides involvement in some event. That is no longer the case with Knox, as it's clear from the books discussed above. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Amanda Knox: I was sexually harassed in prison, Amanda Knox Shared One Last Moment With Former Boyfriend Before Going Free, Amanda Knox Will Reunite with Ex-Boyfriend, Her Dad Says, TV host sorry for asking, ‘would ya’ go home with Amanda Knox?, Amanda Knox offered porn job, ‘no nudity required’, 'Foxy Knoxy': Sex, violence and media hysteria, CBS television to air Amanda Knox special, Following Amanda Knox, Amanda Knox: the wealth that awaits her, Amanda Knox Trying to Break Habit of Speaking Italian, Amanda Knox: What's in a face?, Amanda Knox's dad: ABC producer gave kids her room, etc. etc. etc. (none of which have anything to do with Murder of Meredith Kercher). -- samj _in^out 00:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle's Big Blog with a porn industry comment about AK is hardly encyclopedic material, and there are other blogs here.  The issue is WP:RECENTISM and historical perspective.  There is no deadline.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am amazed at the sophistry of those arguing "keep the MOMK article as-is". Please allow me to explain: Thousands of people are murdered year in and year out. And regarding the unfortunate Meredith, there was nothig particularly notable about her murder, per se. She was a pretty British student, brutalized and killed in a horrible manner, while studying overseas. Do these facts alone make her notable? No. What brought this issue to notability were the extreme and salacious allegations heaped primarily on Amanda Knox. The notablility of the trial itself only arose because a buffoon of a prosecutor chose to advance an absurdly unsubstantiated theory of the case. A theory so bizzare that when it was tagged on Amanda (a pretty American student) with allegations of perverted sex crime thrown in, well there's your notability. The issue is not that Meredith was murdered, but that the focus was so wrongly placed in a wild and false manner on innocent people. This case is notable because it was essentially a witch hunt. Amanda and her boyfriend were scapegoated by buffoons who had preposterous thinking instead of valid evidence. There was no valid or effective police work actually done here. None of the evidence pinned on Rafael or Amanda was valid at all - and the appeals court said so. The major story here is what happened to the innocent people, not what happened to the deceased. Those who've been against an Amanda article in favor of the MOMK article are adulating poor Meredith's death. She doesn't deserve to be known for her murder only. Meredith perhaps should have a page, an actual page. But Amanda, upon whom most of the attention and notability has been focused, should definately have one too. The sad conclusion of the intersection of their lives has made them both notable. Limiting their stories solely to a killing - because one was murdered and the other falsely accused of it, is absurd. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - It has become apparent by now that people have been focusing on Knox's personal life beyond her involvement in the Kercher case. At this point, the information on Knox has clearly outgrown WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME such that the time has come to fork some of the material on the main Kercher page into a separate page about Knox herself, since content about Knox herself is now occupying a very significant portion of the page. I understand that Knox herself may or may not be happy about us writing about her personal life, but even if she were to intervene herself, I seriously doubt we could delete an article on her - just like we can't delete articles of world leaders, celebrities, etc. upon the subjects' requests. When I go to Google to look up information about her, I am far more likely to type in her name rather than Kercher's name - in fact, Knox's name generates more than six times the Google hits of Kercher's name, which should definitely say something. TML (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus in the discussion. The BLP1E policy was not decisive because it clearly allows for separate coverage when the individual is prominent, as in this case. This point was made during the discussion and the closer failed to acknowledge it. Warden (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not really overturn: I don't give a crap what the consensus was over a year ago, which I assume was correctly assessed by the closing admin; it shouldn't bind us now. BLP1E says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented a separate biography may be appropriate." She has well and truly passed this point. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the appeal to BLP1E in this case is a prime example of how that policy is fallacious. Amanda Knox is now notable on her own right above and beyond that of the simple murder. The subsequent coverage, acquital, and release make her notable. Her role and history have been covered in such detail that limiting the article to an article on the murder of somebody she was acquitted of killing is a complete and utter joke. This is one of those cases where we need an article on the subject.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I see that a user has created Timeline of the Amanda Knox case, which may or may not have an effect on any future split of the main article and/or a BLP on Knox. I can't help feeling this might benefit from more (or indeed any) discussion, or at least someone really familiar with the sources to go through it. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you mean Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case, in which case much of this argument applies to that article too. -- samj _in^out 01:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the title TMKMC because the word "Case" can refer to multiple things from a single trial to the entire universe of things that are even tangentially related to the murder. Suggest rename. What was wrong with Trials of AK and RS? Brmull (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It got moved to the current title a few hours after I commented here. I would suggest merging it to an article on the trial if that gets consensus at the ongoing talk page discussion. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The close reflected the quality of the policy-based arguments put forward in the AfD. Nothing more can be asked of a closing admin. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is hardly the point. The last AfD took place more than a year ago; this discussion is not focused on whether the AfD then was correct or not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That actually makes this a very simple process... recreate the article. Include the stuff that has occurred over the past year (namely the overturn of the conviction, release, and subsequent coverage of Amanda Knox, along with any political fallout stemming from this case) and you now have a new article that is not covered by the original AFD. In order for the AfD from a year ago to apply today, the article has to be essentially the same, covering the same material/subject.... but a lot has happened since then to give Amanda independent Notability. If somebody were to speedy delete an article recreated with the new information, then they would be in violation of policy!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the overturn of the conviction and release belong in this article, and subsequent coverage of Knox which amounts to video of her leaving prison and giving a brief press conference upon her arrival home, which is little more than a footnote to MoMK, what would be the point of creating a content fork which would inevitably lead to a merge? An AK article needs to wait for her to do something worth noting. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Here's another batch of articles in reliable sources that have little or nothing to do with MoMK and demonstrate that Amanda is independently verifiably notable: Amanda Knox: A Tale of Two Lookalike Boyfriends (International Business Times), Amanda Knox Slips Out of Seclusion for Brief Shopping Trip (abc news), Amanda Knox: The untold story (CBS News), Amanda Knox Home: The Latest News On How She Is Settling In (Huffington Post), AMANDA KNOX MOLESTED BY HIGH-RANKING OFFICIAL (AGI News - Italy), Reports: Amanda Knox sexually harassed in Italian prison (KOMO News). -- samj _in^out 17:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having two lookalike boyfriends, going on a brief shopping trip, being sexually harassed. I hadn't seen it until now, but clearly these things do constitute independent notability. After all, we give an article to everyone else who goes shopping, so why not Amanda Knox? --FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not for us to decide what is "worthy of notice" — the fact is that multiple independent reliable sources have given her significant coverage independent of MoMK. -- samj _in^out 21:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weakly support redirect for now While some people have outlined other information about Knox here, it is almost completely in the context of the trial or due to related issues. If that coverage continues then it might make sense to have an article on her. The ideal thing for now might be to have a redirect a separate article Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. This would likely be ideal since there's clearly enough information about the trial and appeals itself to merit its own article. If further sources do come out later about her in a context that is minimally connected then it may at that time make more sense to have a separate biography. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, if nothing else per WP:COMMONSENSE. StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I supported a separate article for Knox from the beginning. But now consider, apart from the murder:

• Criminal libel case against Amanda Knox - up to 6 years in prison - for alleging police brutality and not being able to name the cop from among the officers they decided to show her.
• Criminal libel case against Amanda Knox's parents for their interview in the Sunday Times - something which on its own should be of great relevance for Wikipedians in light of the it.wikipedia boycott (see Village Pump).
• "Trick" where prison authorities told Knox she had HIV in order to get her to name her sexual partners, which were then leaked to the tabloids to help paint her as a sex freak.
• Various commercial deals, movie, and lawsuits.

Every celebrity gets famous for one thing, but they don't remain BLP1Es for ever. Any one of these things should be enough to count as a second event. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This person Jennifer Grant has a wiki page and Amanda Knox does not? So much for uniform application of notability rules... 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Facepalm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Completely out of process deletion, almost the personal whim of the admin concerned, no prior discussion, nothing. Should be overturned immediately. Is this the 2nd or 3rd time? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. There may be an argument to be made that the template is incivil or pointless, but the deleting admin, instead of making it, substituted his judgment for the community's here. Just deleting it out of the blue was a bad call. Restore and start a TfD if it's felt that the template needs to be discussed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the deleter, some guy fittingly named Bain, has a grand total of 12 actual edits this year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion and allow for a TfD. Repeated IAR deletions of a goofy template? That's not on. Yes, it may seem like this template fails on the civility front, but the concept of facepalming is well known to be a funny reaction to something stupid (we can't deny stupid things do go on, right?) and so long as the use of the facepalm template are done within the context of a pre-established consensual relationship between friends, I don't see what the problem is. Imagine: an admin I know in real life (from our monthly London pub meetups) does something stupid, and so I go to his talk page and leave a facepalm. Just like we do with {{Trout}}. If people use it to bite the newbies then discipline them for doing that, but don't take fun away from established users because it might be abused. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. Funny and harmless. I've used it and I've had it used on me. No big deal. Frequently used toward oneself. Basically a visual "D'oh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion - speedily - I think the pretty much inactive user User:Stephen Bain has no good reason to have the tools anymore also, this without discussion admin action (soon to be speedily overturned) was apart from one deletion of his own creation , his only admin action for over two years. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This template ought to die (TfD or otherwise). According to our article Facepalm, this is "an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief, disgust, shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of perceived idiocy." This does nothing to foster civil discourse among Wikipedians. I've just looked through how it is being used, and whilst I do see the occasional use in self-deprecation, generally it is used as a shorthand put-down (=incivility) implicitly calling your correspondent an idiot, and his latest contribution self-evidently moronic. Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete {{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to legitimise such dismissive discourse. The fact that people see no harm in this shows how much we've grown to tolerate ingrained incivility. There is simply no excuse for this.--Scott Mac 14:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion - speedily. His admin status can/should be reviewed elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Not a single admin's authority to delete a template that they do not like. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I can't see how the consensus was to delete. The closing admin has called it a redirect (though that wasn't mentioned in the discussion) and has explained here that he thought the consensus was to delete. But I think it should be undeleted (or unredirected) since there was no consensus to delete. StAnselm (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was one of the Delete people in the original discussion, and I think the closing admin made a sensible decision here. There were three users who argued for deletion and three for keeping the article, but none of the keepers provided any sources. One of the Keeps suggested that a Merge may be appropriate, while the other two argued that as a Denomination this group is automatically notable. I don't think the denomination rule is officially part of a guideline, and in my opinion it is a bit a of a stretch to call a group of four churches a "denomination" anyway. So, I think the closing admin gave the proper weight to the opinions offered in the discussion. (Maybe it should have been deleted first and then redirected though.) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin: It really doesn't matter if it has four churches or four hundred. What it needs is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and instead of coming up with specific sources the "keep" !voters just waved their hands and said they exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect A redirect was the most reasonable close. I tend to be very accepting of articles of churches and political parties, because of the great value in preserving the information. But there were no actual third party sources, & the redirect preserves the information for use if there should be any found. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect per User:DGG's argument above. -- samj _in^out 21:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sterrettc's !vote was blind to applicable inclusion standards. St Anselm called for inherent notability, which is fine, but calls for inherent notability need consensus support, and this didn't have it. Peterkingiron called for improvements to be made in sourcing but doesn't give a scintilla of evidence to suggest that such improvements were possible. The three delete !votes on the other hand pointed to the applicable inclusion standard (WP:GNG) and gave evidence why it wasn't met. It was more than open for the debate to be closed in the way it was. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the closing admin did more than is being accepted here.  The article was not deleted, the information remains available in the history of the redirect, and this implies that at least some of the information here is encyclopedic.  Having spoken to the closing admin on a related issue, I believe that this means that the decision as to what to do with this material has been returned to editorial control, and there is no actual need for a deletion review.  Regarding the state of the article during the AfD, I see a need for this topic to be presented in a context other than which it was found, so I endorse the redirect.  An unmentioned issue here is, was or could there be any better target than "Presbyterianism"?  The most obvious is a re-created page that compares the various brands of "Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church", but this could also be a "List of Presbyterian Denominations".  In any case, I think the burden here is on the editors such as myself.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. I tried looking for a "List of Presbyterian demonimations" article but couldn't find one. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The list is at List of Christian denominations#Presbyterianism. StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, problem is they all have articles. Perhaps the statement "all denominations are notable" is almost always true. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It would also fit into List of Reformed churches and List of Reformed churches in North America. StAnselm (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]