Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher. After looking at the arguments brought forward, it is evident to me that the reasons for redirection are more policy-based (i.e. applications of WP:BLP1E, POV forking, which came first, etc.) and seem more substantive than the reasons for retention (a couple which were completely invalid reasons to keep, such as reasons based off WP:ITSNOTABLE and based on attacking the opposition). –MuZemike 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A combination of POVFORK and BLP1E violation. This individual is only notable for alleged participation in a murder, and the issues progressing from that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the sake of reference, here is how the article looked before. Averell (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I do not oppose a protected redirect. I would have merely created the redirect myself if not for the comment by the unprotecting admin that AFD was the appropriate course of action. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Further note Wikid77 has canvassed with biased message ÅlandÖland, John Nevard and Suomi Finland 2009, editors who have agreed with him at Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher, while he failed to notify individuals who disagreed with him. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not canvassed anyone. I have notified people who wanted to contribute to the article that it had been approved for expansion. Others had been notified at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, during the same hour. -Wikid77 (talk) 9 June 2010 (revised 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Additional note: Wikid77's actions have been raised at WP:ANI and have resulted in a topic ban on all articles pertaining to Kercher, Knox, and similar crime cases for three months.  Super Mario  Man  21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Individual notability comes from multiple separate events covered by major sources (WP:BLP1E). If the Kercher murder had occurred in Aruba, and then years later, Knox had been last seen with a female prisoner found strangled in Peru, that would clearly be beyond 1 event: 2 felony crimes (a murder, then a 2nd murder). Instead, Knox is arrested for the first murder on 6 November 2007, then years later accuses the Perugia police of abuse (12 June 2009): treated as 2 felony crimes (a murder, then defamation of police). Involvement in 2 widely reported felony crimes, years apart, is a case when WP:BLP1E no longer applies. The chain of connection is broken when the 2nd event is not a likely outcome of the first (instead, a choice was made). When the Perugia court declared a 2nd trial for defamation, they too were acknowledging there was a 2nd event, separate from the first trial (major source on 2nd event: "Knox appears in Italian court to face slander charges", CNN Wire Staff, 1 June 2010, web: CNN-T3). Ignoring either felony charge is not acceptable, just as ignoring either death, in Aruba or in Peru, cannot be used to claim, somehow, if the first event had not occurred, a person would be just another student connected with only 1 event. Knox has notability from coverage of separate events, years apart. Also, WP cannot delete the article of "Charles Darwin" by claiming a need to combine all POV discussions of Evolution, nor can WP delete "Earth" as a POV fork of "Flat Earth". For those reasons, a separate bio article is based on notability, not on content debates. Per WP:NPOV, the proper action is to edit an article to have better NPOV-neutral wording, adding alternative major viewpoints, not instantly delete the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. All Knox's alleged notability stems from the original event that she was found guilty of. If that event had not occurred, she would not be notable.  Textbook BLP1E. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, BLP1E states:  If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. I think Ms. Knox no longer qualifies as a low-profile individual and has become substantially notable on her own. You are correct in your assertion that she would not be notable if it were not for the murder of Meredith Kercher but the reality is that a lot of the coverage in reliable sources is about Ms. Knox, not about the murder (, ,, amongst others). BLP1E adds, The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources and it looks to me that the coverage of Ms. Knox in reliable sources is fairly persistent. Classic BLP1E this is not. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Amanda Knox is notable today beyond the murder she is convicted for,,, because of television and major news coverage on her as a person and beyond. She is notable beyond a one time event. and should thereby be kept as an article subject on Wikipedia.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Amanda Knox is today more notable than the actual murder case itself so dont really see your point?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Amanda Knox is now arguably a better known name than the lady who was killed. I'm not going to get into ONEEVENT type arguments here, but it is fairly obvious (to me anyway!) that Ms. Knox's story has taken on a life of its own. We should have an article on her. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to main article. Obvious WP:POVFORK by a user intent on "cleansing" Ms.Knox's image.  Knox is a classic WP:BLP1E. If this article is kept it will merely double the amount of edit-warring and disruption which at present is being contained in the main article.  The image in the article should probably tell you how much of a joke this is. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Amanda Knoxs article shoulndt be redirected just because potential fears of edit vandalisms and sutch. Amanda Knoxs article will grow over time and she will be more in medias lights over the years to come. while the actual murder case wil fade away. today amanda knox is actually notable and the murder case is perhaps not.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E do give some wiggle room in that Knox is no longer a "low-profile individual" and her role in the event was significant. Location (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher. There is mild justification for a fork, but Wragge makes a good point in that Wikipedia would not be better served by it. Location (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Black Kite comments. Malke 2010  18:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Amanda Knox is today more notable as a person than the mruder case itself. If anything the murder case info should be reverted into the Amanda Knox article. but I worry that from the root an article will grow again Yes i see your "worry" as the person the article is about is very notable and the article will very likel grow alot over the next coming years.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't really a reason to delete a completely valid redirect page. Averell (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * uuh?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a response to the original comment, not yours. I meant that "it could grow again" is not a reason to delete the redirect page. Averell (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect A reader might type in the name Amanda Knox and the redirect will be useful. Malke 2010  18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher seems as obvious as redirecting Meredith Kercher herself had been. Both are logical search terms, and I think that a red link would be more of a "root" than anything. Mandsford 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect (see also Articles_for_deletion/Trial_of_Knox_and_Sollecito) Seems an obvious POV FORK. If it weren't a POV fork, I don't really see anything that isn't covered in the main article (apart from some trivia) - meaning that this article has no content to stand on it's own. Also, the 2nd "crime" is not really notable in itself, nor do I think the murder case is important enough to justify articles on the persons involved (as per BLP1E). I propose to revert this to a redirect, unless until a need for such a splitout develops in the main article. Averell (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another Afd doesnt imply any consensus on who this afd will end. Amanda Knox is notable in her own right.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher, as this is an obvious WP:POVFORK Jonathan (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is an obvious keeper, Notable beyoned a one time event. International coverage, media hype around Knox as a person even more than the actual murder case itself.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mandsford, in this case. BLP1E isn't my favourite rule because so many genuinely notable people originally came to public attention because of one event. Besides, people can be notable in their own right purely because they were accused of murder (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald).  But in this case we're dealing with a current event and the content needs to be watched closely, not forked.  Consider protecting the redirect.— S Marshall  T/C 18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article should remain as it is. Knox is notable beyond a one time event. etc etc etc..--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect; merge nothing. Amanda Knox's public life is covered at Murder of Meredith Kercher; all proceeds from the murder, subsequent trial and conviction.   pablo hablo. 18:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More information about Amanda could easily be found, also she will obviously continue to be in the press for years to come. And i mean Amanda Knox herself...not the actual murder case. She is notable beyond a one time event and should be kept.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * She is notable for the one event - the murder which she has been tried for - and other events which proceed from that such as her appeal against her conviction and the legal cases against her as a result of statements she has made to, and accusations she has (or her family have) levied against the police.  pablo hablo. 20:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I have said this for a long time,. Amanda Knox is a notable person, she is the one in this case that has recieved about 99% of the coverage. She is even more in focus than the actuall murder victim. Amanda Knoxs familyhas appeared on Oprah and abot every major television show in America talking about Amanda Knox and not the case itself in particular. She is and will forever be notable. and should thereby not be redirected.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The merge and delete sayers refuses to acknowledge the fact that Amanda Knox is the only party in this case that has recieved world wide coverage. She as a person has recieved more coverage than the murder itself. Amanda is famous beyond the murder and conviction today. And it saddens me that people are saying merge or delete without even taking into consideration these facts, just pointing towards the usual "no brainer" BlP this and One event rule this. Not really making statements to why they dont think she is notable. She is notalbe and that is fact.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would even go so far to say that Amanda Knox is more notable than the murder case itself. Really the murder case should be mentioned in the Amanda Knox article and not the opposit.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not helping your case by inserting a comment after every post with which you disagree. In fact, it probably weakens it in that it appears as though you have some sort of irrational bias. Location (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no WP policy to prevent a user from responding, briefly, to every point made in a discussion. As for the term "irrational bias" please read WP:NPA and WP:Civility. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that it was a violation of policy, nor should anyone infer any malevolent intent. I did attempt to point out that it is not helpful to the discussion to reiterate the save POV over and over. Location (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're really not helping yourself here, you know. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how you can say "I have said this for a long time" when your first comment on this was a week ago (as far as I can tell). Quantpole (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have stated that almost since the creation of the original article. So chill.
 * I am quite chilled out enough thank you. If you wouldn't mind pointing to these previous comments you refer to that would be just grand, as I couldn't find them. I only ask as you refer to them in your !vote so they may perhaps be useful to this discussion. Quantpole (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: article restored after blanking. At 20:03 on 9 June 2010, I restored the contents of the article, which had been 65% blanked (removed) for almost 3 hours. Per WP:AfD, an article, during an Article-for-Deletion discussion, cannot be blanked, in order for other users to assess all the article's contents for WP:BLP or other concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't blanked; all the material that duplicates the main article, or is dubious, was removed. As I have again.  Your version of the article was a clear WP:COATRACK, because it was about the trial, not Knox.  We already have an article about the trial.  Black Kite (t) (c) 20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Knox is clearly known only in relation to one thing. However, I do acknowledge that BLP1E does give grounds for an article on an individual if there role within an event is substantial. At this point Knox may justify having a separate article, as she has received a lot of coverage. But, all of that coverage is in relation to the event, and it is an event that is still ongoing. In 10 years time we may be able to write a good article on her as an individual, but at the moment it is all intimately tied to the event. Introducing excessive biographical details, or focusing on the other minor prosecutions, would fail WP:UNDUE. There shouldn't be anything in this article that couldn't be in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. In addition the first reincarnation of this page was a clear POV fork, and it will require constant watching over and is likely to be subject to numerous edit wars and disputes (as evidenced by the history today already). As such redirect and protect is the best thing to do. Quantpole (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Quantpole's rationale. Seems pretty obvious at this point- of course, that could change, but we can wait until then.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect I entirely agree with Black Kite; this is just another WP:POVFORK article to soapbox for Knox's innocence; Knox is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sections blanked in: Amanda Knox
The article "Amanda Knox" had summarized all the events that make Amanda Knox notable, not just the first trial, but the 2nd trial for defamation, and the 3rd trial of the appeal about the 1st trial. Some might have been reading a version of the article which has been hacked to contain less information about all 3 trials. Amanda Knox does not gain individual notability from 1 trial, but rather from the combination of the 1st trial and the 2nd trial, as covered by major sources, over a period of years (see WP:BLP1E). The 3rd trial has been scheduled (as a trial de novo), so that adds to the notability, as a 3rd major event. If those trials are removed from her article, then notability would be justifiably questioned. Please read WP:NOTABLE. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued AfD for: Amanda Knox

 * COMMENT: article sections blanked again. Per policy WP:AfD, the contents of an article should not be blanked during the Article-for-Deletion discussion. A hollowed article can give the appearance that there is insufficient content to justify a separate article. Any users who have blanked the article contents, should restore that text to avoid violation of WP:AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst those sections of the article contravene POVFORK and COATRACK, are duplications of other articles, contain text that isn't supported by citations, are weasel worded and synthesis, then of course they will be removed. They don't help the article; indeed they may sway people that the article isn't encyclopedic. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Much of what has been removed since the rebirth of the article did not appear to be conducive to an adherence to policy. Examples supporting removal: the section detailing the appeals process was inordinately long and slanted against arguments in favour of conviction, the presence of Friedrich Schwinge's "Blumenpflückerin" as a means of illustrating the subject of the article was misrepresentative if not absurd and, finally, sources such as this (styling itself "A site detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito") generally do not leave a reader with the impression that the article has been written for reasons which are in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV.  Super Mario  Man  01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect all notability here stems from the Murder of Meredith Kercher. Otherwise she's an unremarkable college student. AniMate 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability comes with the 2nd trial, so if acquitted from the first trial, then she must await the 2nd. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

 * Redirect. Full deletion, clearly, is out of the question, since "Amanda Knox" is a popular search term. However, with all dubious and questionable material removed, all the article is left with is a brief biography of Knox and her involvement in the Kercher case. That the amount of good encyclopaedic material remaining points mainly to the pertinent article (indeed, we have a "main article" link in the "Conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher" section), with little detail of additional significance, hints that the reasonable conclusion here is a redirect straight back to the source article. As it stands, the content of this page is more or less a mirror of what is already present on the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article, so there are no grounds for a merge.  Super Mario  Man  00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have expanded text about the 2nd trial in this article. Notability comes with the 2nd trial, so if acquitted from the first trial, then she must await the 2nd. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of trials that a suspect is made to sit through hardly matters much when it is the same subject that is being deliberated. Time and time again, discussion of Knox loops back to Kercher (the murder victim), hence an assertion of notability on the part of Knox is inextricable from the parent article. Furthermore, the purpose of this edit appeared not so much to be to "expand text about the 2nd trial" as to add thinly-disguised (and irrelevant) slurs (in the lead section of all places) on the character of the prosecutor. To insert brief sentences on the subject of this trial and then allege that the person discussed is therefore magically extracted from the murky waters of non-notability does not conceal the all too apparent signs that this page was resurrected for improper reasons, as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines stand.  Super Mario  Man  21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
 * Redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher, per WP:BLP1E, which states:
 * As Amanda Konx is only notable for this event, she does not qualify to have her own article. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  01:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the question is "is she a low-profile individual"? Seems to me that 'Amanda Knox' is, for better or for worse, better known than 'Meredith Kercher' and has a very different notability profile than the other individuals charged with and/or convicted for the murder. Now that I've read the talk page on the murder article, I can see that there are other dynamics at work here (legitimate ones, I should hasten to add) but ....! --RegentsPark (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * She may be more well known than Meredith Kercher, but that does not make her notable, in and of itself. She is only well-known for the crime, not for anything else. The article is short enough to be merged back into the original aricle. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  02:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually do think she is a low-profile individual. Unless some future event in her life makes her notable, she does not deserve her own article. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  02:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Her individual notability comes with the 2nd trial, so if acquitted from the first trial, then she must await the 2nd. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect (to Murder of Meredith Kercher) for the following reasons:
 * Knox is notable only for the events surrounding the murder of Meredith Kercher. Knox had done nothing notable before the murder (1 November 2007) and was in custody 5 days later, where she has remained ever since. During that time she has done nothing notable apart from appearing in court at various times.
 * Although some have argued that the murder, investigation and trials are more than one event, the spirit of WP:BLP1E still applies. This works well in some other articles: Myra Hindley, for example, only exists as a redirect to the Moors murders, although she was involved in 5 murders.
 * If we remove from the Amanda Knox article all the events which are covered in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, there's nothing notable left.
 * The media have certainly tried to manufacture a notability for Knox, beyond the events of the murder case. However, much of this has focused on things like Knox's sex-life, her cartwheeling at police stations, etc. We would either have to include thus stuff, and end up with a "tabloid" article, or choose only to include the positive writings about Knox, and end up with a POV one.
 * The Murder of Meredith Kercher article has been controversial, with several ANI cases, a mediation case and the need for serious administrator intervention at various times. A second article with overlapping subject matter will simply provide another opportunity for those who wish to push their own POVs, to switch their actions between the two articles.
 * The circumstances of this article's creation hardly bode well for managing consensus! There was a discussion ongoing about the desirability of creating a separate Amanda Knox article here. Wikid77 made a couple of contributions to it, but consensus had nowhere near been reached. Then Wikid77 unilaterally created the Amanda Knox article, without even mentioning his/her actions in that discussion. He/she has rather belatedly informed some individuals that "the article has been approved for expansion". Apart from anything else, I am puzzled about who has "approved" the article, despite the lack of consensus.
 * Bluewave (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You stated that Wikid77 has "belatedly informed" some, but during the same hour I was notifying people who had wanted to edit the article, a general announcement had been posted in the discussion to create the article, so there was no need for me to contact those other users: several were discussing and editing the article at that time, during that same hour. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability of Knox comes with the 2nd (defamation) trial, so if acquitted from the first trial, then she must await the 2nd, regardless of how Kercher died. The other article (Murder of Meredith Kercher) was becoming overshadowed by Knox's legal cases, including civil suits to prevent other books from being published: it was becoming difficult to describe the main topic, the murder, because all of Knox's other court cases were cluttering the focus of that other article. There was even an attempt to rewrite the entire text, to become smaller, due to all the issues involving Amanda Knox, rather than the murder itself. This 2nd article, "Amanda Knox" provides ample space for WP:NPOV neutral coverage of all the major Knox legal cases, reported in WP:RS reliable sources, and allows the other article to describe the forensic evidence of the murder, rather than all the court motions. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion, but I don't feel that this 2nd trial is in any way notable by itself. I'm pretty sure that there are dozens of similar cases each year. But, see below. Averell (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not require prior WP:CONSENSUS before creating an article: articles are based on individual notability, rather than popularity with readers. If a wiki-trend developed to discuss George Washington's first nephew, a group cannot decide to create a separate article based on consensus: articles are based on notability, which is explored during an AfD. I submitted a formal request to begin an article, advising that a WP:AfD would need to discuss notability, and that's how the article became "approved". As for being "belatedly informed", I was never even notified, via a talk-page entry, that this new article, which I started in entirety, had been tagged for AfD. So, I think that is unfair, not being notified, as the author, that the article has been tagged AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I live in Italy and Knox, being constantly the focus of intense media attention here, is clearly notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree fully with your points.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I live in Italy too and, don't get me wrong, but, quite frankly, I don't see that much media attention, lately here. And, anyway, it was (and will be, probably, as soon as her appeal starts) all due to her trial, so IMHO it stands to reason that this article be made into a redirect. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: From the comments above it appears that both camps seem to believe this hinges only the interpretation of BLP1E. In my eyes, it does not. Even if the article does not fall under that rule (and there are valid arguments that it doesn't), that just means that the article could exist. Not that it must exist. What I am still missing here is the content that would make the article truly useful in addition to the main article. Until I see this content this article remains a merge/redirect candidate to me, as it would just contain duplicated information. The strongest case Wikid could have made for this article would have been a balanced article that showed what could go here beyond the main article. Instead, what came out was simply a different POV on the murder case and related events (the blanked sections make that even worse, IMHO). And we don't need a separate article for that. Averell (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect, keep nothing: Amanda Knoxs relevance and known bio has been stated on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article already. Wikipedia is not a news agency nor is it a celebrity fan page. Knox ist still just notable for the alleged murder of Meredith Kercher, and all her fame stems from this. That some known people in the US have commented on her case, does not make her more notable, as for example Oprah talks about a lot of people every day, and that still doesn't justify a sole article for these people. Further, there is absolutely no more or extra information about the person Knox in this article, than there is in the article of the Murder of Meredith Kercher. So whats the point? Akuram (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The keep-camp do not want a general study of AK's life, a biography. Even in the first article general reporting of her behaviour and previous life was edited as being an invasion of privacy and some editors objected that the information was not relevant. No extra information will be allowed in the 2nd article. Kwenchin (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect the article per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. I don't see why a stand alone article is required for Knox when the pertinent information is already included in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, it just serves to further disparage the subject. If, as Averell23 states above "The other article (Murder of Meredith Kercher) was becoming overshadowed by Knox's legal cases", then it appears that WP:NOTNEWS applies. The article does not need to include every motion and minor civil case surrounding Knox, just a NPOV sourced paragraph clearly outlining the pertinent details of the trial(s) and the outcome(s) once known. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fairness required. This is a good example to open a RFC or some other method to get an agreement on BLP1E and murderers.  There are more obscure murders that survive AFD.  There are BLP1E people that survive AFDs.  There should be consistency in Wikipedia.  Since people's feelings are involved, this also becomes a question of fairness.  People point to "other crap exists" but many of those articles have been subject to AFD.  So if AFD produces different and inconsistent results, this makes AFDs look like a bad process.  Since the single murderer question comes up often, it behooves Wikipedia to come up with a more precise definition.  Also see WP:SimilarTreatmentIsOK.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While you have every right to do so, I find it a bit cheeky that you point to an essay that you've entirely drafted up yourself. And yes, it does contradict WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and also OTHERSTUFF, both of which appear to have broader support. In general, discussions should be decided by arguments on the case itself, not by meta-arguments from other cases. Averell (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Drafted a long time ago. There is another one that I cannot find. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On another note, this discussion is not about if we cover the murder or not. We do, extensively, in Murder of Meredith Kercher. This discussion is about whether we need an additional page on one person involved in that case, who is already covered in that other article. I don't know what you mean by "single murderer" event, but Wikipedia usually covers the event instead of the people involved in it. Averell (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Philip Markoff, the murderer. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And? That page stands on its own, it does cover the event and it is not an additional page on a topic already covered elsewhere. Averell (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * People familiar with the discussions on the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page will know that the article is in the process of being completely re-written in light of the large-scale POV fact-bloating and -obfuscation that had caused the article to deviate from its prescribed topic - namely, the Murder of Meredith Kercher. Without this murder, Knox would have been no more or less notable than any other American college student in Italy. Assertions of notability currently appear to hinge on the facts that the December 2009 verdict is being appealed and that a retrial has been scheduled, as if there existed no legal precedents for such proceedings when in fact decisions to dispute rulings and initiate retrials are far from uncommon, and do not distinguish Knox as a encyclopaedic subject meriting an article focused on her alone. There is nothing notable about Knox's history prior to the murder, and with her conviction and incarceration her potential to become notable - to make further impact on the outside world - is compromised. And, turning to the future, in the case that the 2009 conviction is left to stand and Knox to serve the set sentence, there will be nothing more to add to the article further to her involvement in the Kercher topic - which is already detailed in the relevant article and does not require duplication here. Even with an acquittal, she could just fade from public view, and would be no more notable as a distinct Wikipedia subject.  Super Mario  Man  21:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you are talking about "if scenario" that isnt happening, The murder did accour and it is a fact that Amanda Knox herself has recieved alot more media coverage than the actual murder victim,the murder itself and all the other suspects combined, its facts that we cant disregard. The usual differetn WP rules on these kind of articles doesnt apply on Knox as she is a special case, just like Kosovo was a special case in international law. Knox has per fact achieved notability beyond the crime committed and there is no WP rule that can be used atleast not in my opinion to justify a deletion or merge of this article today. It also troubles me that the delete and merge sayers hides behind different insufficient WP rules when they have their say on thi particular article.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also talking about how the article is - currently - presented, and how there is - currently - practically nothing to make it a true biography rather than just a rehash of selected portions from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which due to its duplication of material makes it a prime target for vandalism, trolling and subversive POV insertion. Declaring that "Amanda Knox herself has received a lot more media coverage than the actual murder victim, the murder itself and all the other suspects combined" is meaningless unless it is reflected in the sourcing of the article. Why is it that not one of the sources currently present discusses Knox in a framework that is removed from the murder of Meredith Kercher? And, at the same time, why is it still claimed that Knox is a "special case" with regard to Wikipedia's guidelines on living persons notable for one event, in light of such sources? (I won't go into the problem of the removed sections, their bias and their dependence on unreliable citations.) If there is material out there which sets a foundation for Knox's notability in a context separate from the murder of Kercher, feel free to prove me wrong by adding it to the article.  Super Mario  Man  20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:COATRACK lets cover the event not the person Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't like it is not a valid reason for deletion, nor is the POV of previous editors. If this were a routine, high-profile murder case, then I would agree to merging. However, the ongoing coverage specific to Knox has pushed her well beyond the point of "low profile" individual. We aren't looking at a brief flurry of coverage, we're looking at 3 years of ongoing coverage trials and related controversies. Horrorshowj (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And the coverage she gets is because of what? Yep, exactly. Because of the murder which she is involved with. She is not know or associated with anything else but the Murder of Meredith Kercher. She wouldn't get any attention, if she hadn't been arrested and tried for it. Even the TV shows her family have been at are inviting the family members solely, because of her involvement in the murder case. Since all available personal information of Knox is already stated in the article about the murder, there is no possible reason to justify an article for Knox herself. Akuram (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's "no possible reason to justify an article for Knox herself," then why have several people presented one? The reason she's getting the coverage is irrelevant. It's ongoing, and the slander trial is separate from the murder trial. If Knox killed an inmate, would you claim that belonged under the original murder article, on the basis that it wouldn't have occurred without the original murder? According to WP:BLP1E, which apparently most of the people citing it haven't actually read, she would qualify as an exception. Horrorshowj (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, because this argument is the exact same one as probably flys would justify their appetite for cowshit to humans. Hundreds of billions of flys cannot be mistaken: "Cowshit tastes great". If you would actually look at these articles you are mentioning, you would find out, that there is no additional information in it. So why have it then? Akuram (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Keep sayer. I mean Amanda Knox is definitly an exception to all rules thar regulary dismisses these kind of articles. She has reached notaiblity on her own and for her own person. We cant delete or merge this article anytime soon. This article will grow and Amanda Knox not the case itself will be in media for many many years to come.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ÅlandÖland, can you tell us what else will happen in the future? You seem pretty confident that "Amanda Knox not the case itself will be in media for many many years to come" ... what else do you see in your crystal ball? WP:CRYSTALBALL Only after Knox achieves notoriety for anything beyond this horrible crime, she would be deserving of a separate article. Jonathan 11:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs)
 * Well, those oppose this article certainly uses their WP:CRYSTALBALL when thye say that she only has established fame inside the crime article and never will be notable on her own. How do you know that then?? Its a reverese conversation that can be turned and twisted to all sides of the argument. That doesnt make my argument or yours better or worse. I atleast am sure on my opinion that she has established notaiblity beyond the crime, as she is is the news a majority of the time and that all media is focusing on her more than the crime itself makes me think that the crime article should be redirected into the Amanda Knox article. We cant today redirect or delete this article, because she has reached notability. And that is a fact.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ÅlandÖland, nobody saying that Knox will never in the future be notable on her own - that's the whole point of WP:CRYSTALBALL - nobody has the slightest idea what might happen! AS of June 2010, Knox is notable for one and only one thing. Besides, she is fast wearing out her welcome and her defence team is crying wolf too many times, right now the only news articles related to Knox are tied to this Mafioso supergrass - Knox isn't doing anything today beyond sitting in a prison cell.Jonathan 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "... the crime article should be redirected into the Amanda Knox article." So, to use parallel logic, should we have the John F. Kennedy assassination page merged into our article on Lee Harvey Oswald, because the murder of a US President ultimately isn't a big deal, and really only accounts for one small episode in Oswald's life? At least in the case of these two articles the notability of the subjects has been unambiguously established, which is a far cry from the situation that we are faced with here: a clone of sections from an article of note, which is claimed to be able to stand as an independent biography despite just reproducing material from that article of note.  Super Mario  Man  21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete & Redirect to murder article, per 1EVENT. Verbal chat  18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

 * Comment/request. Although there are some arguments above, from the "keep" exponents, that policy does not preclude creating an "Amanda Knox" article, I have not seen a good argument for why such an article will be of value. Looking at the current version, for example, I don't see that it adds anything notable that's not covered in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Could someone who believes that the article should be kept please list a few of the notable facts and events that would go in the article on Amanda Knox but would not also be covered in the article on the murder? Bluewave (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * NOTE to closing admin: At this point, some of the issues to consider are: &bull; Knox received so much coverage she is likely notable beyond 1 event. &bull; Knox's worldwide focus was elevated (12 June 2009) when she claimed the Perugia police pressured her, into false confession, and claimed when police repeatedly asked, "Did you hear her scream?" then Knox replied no, no and no, but that became: Knox covered her ears to block Kercher's screams (denied by Knox). &bull; Knox's claims led to 2nd trial (1 June 2010): defamation of police. &bull; Could this separate article be controlled against BLP violations, and would extra discussions be spawned to limit privacy information? &bull; Would having this article, as separate, then reduce POV disputes in "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and make BLP checking easier, since the title of this article indicates the person to guard for BLP slanting? Discussion below might raise more issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (point of accuracy). Just to clarify a point of accuracy relating to Wikid's 2nd point: Amanda Knox first claimed that police pressured and hit her, in a note that she wrote on 6 November 2007, as was widely reported in the press later that month.. So I think it is a bit misleading to suggest the claim was made on 12 June 2009 (though it was indeed repeated then). My point is that that this is not some separate notable event that happened years after the murder: it all occurred in a period of a few days in November 2007, but the legal proceedings, as always, dragged on. Bluewave (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * All this is somewhat besides the point if we still don't know what value this article adds to Wikipedia, given that the topic is already covered. Articles exist to inform the reader, no to address perceived policy problems or whatever. Averell (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Break 3

 * Strong Keep Personally, I am astonished people are voting delete on the basis that it's a POV Coatrack. That something or someone is a controversial topic doesn't automatically make it grounds for deletion based on its controversy. I am less astonished about the BLP1E delete and redirect votes, and am somewhat sympathetic insofar as I see the overarching point... but I think that is an incredibly literal read of BLP1E. Amanda Knox is clearly, to my eyes and based on reviewing the sources, very notable independent of the trial -- and yes, that notability came about as a result of the trial, I fully understand that, but she is not inextricably tied to the one event anymore. Regardless, I seem to be in a minority here, and so long as the result isn't deletion (which seems like a pretty dramatic outcome for someone who is, at the very least, plainly notable) I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  03:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right in the sense that this article does not need to be a coatrack. However, the original draft was clearly used as such. Its scope was mainly to paint the "Guilt and Innocence of Amanda Knox" in a different light. Which is/was a topic of a heated POV discussion in the original article. As I have said above, it hasn't been shown for what this article would be used were it not a coatrack/pow fork. Amanda Knox is clearly notable, but within the scope of the event. That is why I say that a separate page on her should only be started if her coverage in the main article shows the need. Averell (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Several people have made points to the effect that (as Ginsengbomb puts it) Amanda Knox "is not inextricably tied to the one event anymore". But what are the other events that are being referred to? The only events that people have actually referred to here are the murder, the trials, the imprisonment and the media hype surrounding them...in other words, events that are inextricably tied to one event. The current version of the Amanda Knox article just confirms this: there is nothing in it other than summaries of the contents of the murder article and some banalities. Someone please help me out here and tell me a few of the notable events, which are not tied to the murder, and which will justify Amanda Knox as a worthwhile article in its own right. Bluewave (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ginsengbomb, several of us have also commented that Amanda Knox has probably received enough attention to 'beat' BLP1E. What we are saying though is that despite that, all the coverage she receives is in relation to the event which she is connected to. If we have a separate article on her then it is duplication of material. On a practical level, I wouldn't be as concerned about it if it were not for the delicate position surrounding the article. The main article is enough trouble trying to keep to wikipedia policies, let alone having another one. There have been seemingly endless (often bad faith) discussions about it, and this would add an extra article to be fought over. If you think that a separate article should exist, then I would like to know what information you think should be in the Amanda Knox article, that shouldn't be in Murder of Meredith Kercher. Quantpole (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are all very good points, and I can see how the separate articles cause problems when editing -- people tend to be pretty fired up about her case, and removing POV material from two separate articles, on two subjects, can be challenging. I suppose I would argue that a Knox article include elements of her background, the media circus surrounding her appearances in court, her character, etc. I should put emphasis on "suppose," because I'll be honest and say I'm writing this having not given it a considerable amount of thought, and it's possible there's some deep flaw to that proposal that I'm not considering. You might then make sure that the "Murder" article focus on the crime itself and very specifically on the trial, without undue emphasis on Knox. That ought to remove much of the POV potential from the "Murder" article (wishful thinking, I imagine). I say "not inextricably tied" because so much of the coverage of the trial focused specifically on Knox' character -- the coverage of the trial, not the trial. To Bluewave above, you list four separate things that are not necessarily "one event." I think, in particular, the media hype has become such a beast in and of itself that it is precisely what justifies including a separate article. Knox became, very early on, much bigger than the trial -- "Foxy Knoxy," etc. By the way, I should say that there's an element of "I have no idea how we could justify NOT having an article on Amanda Knox, she's been major headline news years now" to my arguments and opinions here. I am very biased in favor of inclusion, so if it looks like I'm glossing over your arguments against inclusion, please accept my apologies! I usually try and avoid deletion discussions where I have a very strong predisposition for this very reason. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I firmly believe that Amanda Knox is notable. I would pose the question that if Amanda Knox is not concerned notable, then why is the murder she accused of notable? While I always assume good faith, some editors on the "delete brigade" are over zealous and search for articles to delete with an almost religious fervor. I say KEEP! Michaelh2001 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a question of who was first, the chicken or the egg.


 * Clearly the murder of Meredith Kercher happened first, and before that, nobody, except her friends, has ever heard of Amanada Knox. Amanda Knox is known to people because of her involvement in a murder case outside the US. She is not known for anything else. If you contradict, feel free to show me what she is known for apart from anything connencted with the initial murder case. The trial(s) got extensive media attention due to the fact, that a foreign country has dared to try an US citizen abroad. Now, this might make the trials noteworthy and there might be a need for a separate article of the trial(s), but not one for Amanda Knox, especially, if there is no additional information about her. In fact, the information which is known and allowed to make public is so little, that the artcile would be covering hardly more than a few sentences. Akuram (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Akuram, you are arguing semantics. You could make the same nonsense argument with most murderers. "Clearly the murders of the young people happened first, and before that, nobody, except his friends, had ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy, or for that matter many other single or serial killer.

Anyway, I maintain my Strong Keep. I believe that she is notable. I am also not so naive as to believe that the powers that be will let this article remain. The power patrol that goes around suggesting that articles should be deleted or moved/merged have already made up their minds and decided whats best for the entire Wikipedia community. They are going to do what they please, and they could give a damn about what I believe, or for that matter what any other user who disagrees with them believes. These little discussions make them feel justified in deleting them and deciding for the rest of us what we get to see. That doesn't change the fact that most of the deletes I've seen are ill advised. A week from now, when this article will surely be gone, the power patrol will feel good about themselves for a while, but they'll never be satisfied and they'll just keep looking for new articles to do away with. And in those cases, like this, they will have already have made up their mind, and they can justify it by saying, "Hey, we discussed it!" (rolls eyes). Michaelh2001 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "I would pose the question that if Amanda Knox is not concerned notable, then why is the murder she accused of notable?" Notability is established on a topic-by-topic basis, not through a sequence of inheritance and transfer of noteworthiness from one broader-ranging topic to a subset topic. That the Murder of Meredith Kercher is notable is not in question. An article dedicated to Knox in isolation must be a full biography of her life and her effect on the world, demonstrating that she merits inclusion as a separate topic on Wikipedia for reasons besides her involvement in the Kercher case. This line from Akuram cannot be ignored: "... feel free to show me what she is known for apart from anything connencted with the initial murder case." The strongest evidence that I see of this at present is the citation stating that she is viewed as a bigger media personality than Carla Bruni - otherwise, nothing would be lost if all the article text were merged back into the Murder of Meredith Kercher page, or, given that it basically just replicates the relevant text on that main page, the article were redirected.  Super Mario  Man  00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Amanda Knox is now one of the most famous women in the U.S.. She will remain famous for the rest of her life, even if she is cleared of the Kercher murder. Hence, she is notable in the US;-- far, far more so than many US citizens who have articles about them on Wikipedia.


 * Actor Tom Cruise has purchased the movie rights for book on the Monster of Florence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monster_of_Florence_(book) by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. The book also covers Amanda Knox's involvement with the same Italian prosecutor, Judge Giuliano Mignini. Tom Cruise says that he intends to focus on the prosecutor and the unjust aspects of the Italian criminal justice system in his movie. As reflected in this book, Knox is very intertwined with the bizarre story of the prosecution of the Monster of Florence case by Judge Giuliano Mignini, as well as Mignini's prosecution and/or lawsuits against the West Seattle Herald, Joe Cottonwood, Oggi Magazine, Edda Mellas (Amanda's mother), Curt Knox, Carlos Dalla Vedova, Atty. Ghirga, Dr. Sollecito, Reporter Francesca Bene. Knox has been treated in a very controversial manner by Mignini, just as Mignini's bugging of journalists and other abuses of power have been controversial. Judge Mignini has been barred from public office for life, pending appeal.


 * Just as Amanda faced bizarre claims of satanic ritual leveled by Mignini, 20 other people faced claims by Mignini based on the death of Dr. Narducci and supposed satanic ritual involvement. According to reliable sources, Mignini was influenced in his prosecution theories by a physic named Gabriella Carlizzi who claimed that Knox was involved with the Order of the Red Rose at the University of Washington, and that the Order of the Red Rose was involved in satanic rituals connected with the murder of Dr. Narducci. Knox is the one person who allows all these fascinating threads and elements to be woven into one story/article. There is an enormous and fascinating story here that cannot be adequately covered in the Kercher murder article. So this short, stub article on Amanda Knox should be allowed to go forward and developed into the fascinating story that it could be. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, What are the names of these "20 other people"? And calling Knox "one of the most famous women in the U.S." is a major stretch .. I live in the USA and don't believe that at all. One of the more infamous people convicted of murder, perhaps. You need to stop representing your opinion as the US position. Jonathan 19:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs)


 * Jonathan, As for whether Amanda is "infamous" or "famous", it matters little. She is notable, as evidenced by the 360,000 hits I just got when I searched her name using AOL/Google. Also, please stop with these repeated false claims that I am trying to speak on behalf of ALL Americans. That is so silly. I did not say above, nor have I ever said, that when I express my OWN personal opinion that that somehow constitutes an expresion of opinion on behalf of all 300 million plus Americans. As for the names of the other 20 individuals falsely accused by Mignini, you can easily find those by Googling the Italian language stories on Mignini's recent sensational big loss in the Dr. Narducci case. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinyskyja, keep in mind that Google hits in and of itself is most definitely NOT sufficient for inclusion a a Wikipedia article. [] Jonathan (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did I say that number of Google hits was sufficent? I had just set forth my reasoning in detail above. There is more than sufficient basis for writing the WHOLE Amanda Knox story, which definitely encompasses far more than the one murder incident. There is a massive story here, when her links to the other Italian cases are included. It seems to me a little silly for anyone to claim that there is nothing more to the Knox story then what is included in the Kercher murder article. The REST of the story is so big, it will soon be coming to a theatre near you! Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You just lobbied for keeping the Knox article based in part on the number of Google hits in your response above! And it is quite dubious to claim Knox is "very intertwined with the bizarre story of the prosecution of the Monster of Florence". Knox herself has no direct connection to the MoF case. Jonathan (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * NO. I made a mention of it to you. That was not my main argument. I might add that I just AOL/Googled the name Meredith Kercher, and came up with only 60,600 hits to Knox's 360,000 hits. This alone does not establish the greater notability of Knox, but it is some evidence of it, at least in the U.S.. As for Knox's connection to the Monster case, she is now indeed being directly connected to the saga via the NY Times Best Seller, Monster of Florence, due to Mignini's bizarre conduct in both cases. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, my definition of "directly connected" must differ from yours. I see Knox at best indirectly connected via a prosecutor who had played a small role in the MoF case, but then again, so are dozens, if not hundres of others. Six Degrees of Separation. Jonathan (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From Zlykinskyja's comments, I'm finding it difficult to determine whether it is not so much Knox that is being claimed to be notable, or the prosecutor, as (unsourced and non-neutral, and not to mention hardly relevant) edits such as this appear to demonstrate.  Super Mario  Man  01:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wragge, I was simply pointing out that Google hits should not come into the discussion when determining Wikipedia notability. The Amanda Knox article had been deleted in the past in part because it had become nothing more than a soapbox and / or advocation for Knox's innocence. Knox is indeed notable, but outside of the trial, there is little of substance that could be added. Jonathan (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Break 4

 * Keep - Hi Jonathon; Knox seems to have a life beyond this one event, even though all her notability flows out of it. As I understand it, she's now involved in two inherent notable court-cases that are only tangentially linked to the murder, international celebrity, and production of a feature film. You could legitimately hold out for a while, but she's certain to need her own page eventually, and in the meantime the Murder of Meredith Kercher page looks terribly unwieldy.  --Wragge (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. Its a keeper.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect -Apologies, I have to update my POV on this. This deletion was being abstractly discussed in terms of the WP:ONEVENT concencus, but that rule makes clear it has exceptions, and I thought that Knox (unlike Myra Hindley) was one of those exceptions (even though the exception-criteria aren't spelled out1). Looking things over, it seems you could make a case either way, so the important issue is practical rather than theoretical: will it improve Wikipedia to redirect? It appears nobody wants to add interesting details to Knox's bio other than those related to the case, but too many people want to edit-war. Because of that reality, one article will better serve the reader. In a perfectly neutral world, my earlier idea might hold water: maybe in that world, splitting would make sense (the one article does have a lot to cover)... But, in this world, it looks as though we'll end up with an uniformative coat rack.
 * Perhaps subsequent developments would be easier to track through the pages of less emotive characters (if that's needed at all). Someone mentions Keeping this for consistency with Jeffrey Dahmer... I don't see a separate article on his killings, but it gives a good example of what I mean: there is a separate page about a police officer only notable for meeting Dahmer; perhaps a Patrick Lumumba article would be the best response if his courtcase diverges into its own story? (Or, is there edit-warring over him too?)
 * I don't see how this deletion debate can be resolved by reference to an (apparently) ambiguous guideline.1 Jack the Ripper, Whitechapel murders, and Mary Ann Nichols all cover the same thing, but it benefits Wikipedia to separate them; this case may have just as much justification for a split under that rule, but looks unlikely to substantially improve Wikipedia while risking time-wasting/forking.
 * --Wragge (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 BLP1E defines the exception (to having a single article) as being for "significant events", and "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", but "reliable sources" are only negatively defined. Tabloid coverage is commonly seen as less 'reliable' than broadsheet, but in this case, even the credibility of the NYT has been seriously questioned -what is a reliable source, and how much coverage in it qualifies a subject for exception to BLP1E? Since those questions aren't even addressed there (except through a hard-to-interpret example) whether or not the exception could apply to Amanda Knox is undecideable and probably isn't a productive focus for this discussion. (The reference of the rule back to the example makes "how persistent the coverage is" look like a step in a fallacy of definition.) On the other hand, I'm learning this area - maybe conventions have been established -have they? (Although if they have, they aren't mentioned in this thread that I can see.)

What information exactly would go into an article on Amanda Knox? If the only thing that would not be duplicated at the Meredith Kercher article is the assertion that she liked to take woodland walks, skip and jump and press wild flowers, then there is no need at the moment for a separate article. pablo hablo. 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider keep and delete, also consider what is done with Abby Sunderland. Abby Sunderland is a young sailor who is known only for one event, trying to sail around the world.  From a strict rules standpoint, a BLP1E violation.  However, logic dictates that "famous" people, people who other people look up in Wikipedia, should have a Wikipedia article.  In that context, both Abby and Amanda should have an article.  WP:SimilarTreatmentIsOK supports this.  Abby has not been nominated for AFD. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah both girls has notaiblity beyond the actual activity that has made them famous in the beginning.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then per that pointy essay, which you made up the other day, perhaps you should nominate it?
 * The SimilarTreatmentIsOK article was created long before the current Amanda Knox article and follows a similar essay written last year. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Suomi Finland 2009, you're presenting a false choice here; there was no pre-existing Wiki article called The Disappearance of Abby Sunderland that had documented the lost-at-sea saga, and then an additional article on the actual person Abby Sunderland created - leaving aside whether or not Sunderland herself will be notable 10 years from now. All of Knox's actions relating to the murder are already documented in the main article. The question is this: What can be added to a separate Knox article so as to not become a WP:COATRACK? Jonathan (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good luck, that question's been asked half a dozen times of various people already. No answer so far ...  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 12:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No way this should be deleted. Somebody just mentioned this case on a forum I go on,  and I never heard nothing about it before so I did a search on her name so i can read up on it.  If the page was deleted then I would have nothing to research into for it.  I do not see how this is even a discussion for deletion,  does not seem to fit the criteria at all.  Anyway whoever nominated this is a d-bag. gfy and gtfo  24.38.156.102 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. What forum? Hipocrite (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For you and all other people coming from whatever forum: This discussion is about if we should have an additional Article called "Amanda Knox" that is separate from the main one, Murder of Meredith Kercher. That article is not up for deletion. And no matter how this is decided, you will always find the information you are looking for when you enter "Amanda Knox" into Wikipedia. Averell (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is No reason for deletion or merging of this article. Amanda Knox has reached notaiblity beyond a one time event.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So you keep saying. Now, however, let's take a look at the current version of the Amanda Knox article. It runs to a grand total of four paragraphs, 18 sentences or 384 words (barely enough to fill one page of a Microsoft Word document at average font size). If indeed "there is no reason for deletion and merging of this article" (into Murder of Meredith Kercher) and "Amanda Knox has reached notability beyond a one-time event" (the murder of Meredith Kercher), why are there mentions of the name "Kercher" in each of the paragraphs? Since, in spite of the number of assertions of independent notability from "Keep"-voters, the article has not been expanded to reflect this supposed independent notability, what is there to lose from merging an 18-sentence article into its parent? At any rate, the current Murder of Meredith Kercher article includes more or less precisely the same information - only, since it is all presented on the same page as the murder details, it makes that article much more coherent for the reader in his/her understanding of the topic. What do you, and others voting "Keep", as editors of Wikipedia, intend to add to this article to justify its separate existence as a biography, not a duplicate of sections from another article? The burden is on you.  Super Mario  Man  00:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And also nothing in the Knox article can be sourced from blogs, fan sites, advocacy, self-published or other such non-verifiable places that are not allowed as a reliable source. Almost the entirety of the Knox blogosphere falls outside of what is considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Jonathan (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I recognize the POVFORK and BLP1E arguments have their merits, but the bottom line is that Knox is just too notable at this point not tto have her own article. I think that Konx has become a cause celebre in certain circles and that the details of her life are of enough interest to ttranscend WP:COATRACK; either the murder article will drown with too much detail, or info that is worth keeping will be lost.  I could be convinced ootherwise, but the weight of the arguments above (at least the better ones) hasn't convinced me yet Vartanza (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * agreeing with you fully. This is a definite keep article.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed! STRONG KEEP! The murder of a young woman does not by itself warrant an article. Sadly, murders in Italy are probably fairly common. The Kircher story is notable because a young American girl was charged and convicted of her murder. If the young woman from Seattle were not involved in this case, nobody would have ever heard of Meredith Kircher. KEEP! Michaelh2001 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, what is the info that would be lost? What is the content that should go into the Knox article? Nobody here disagrees that she's notable as a result of the murder case. Yet neither in this whole discussion nor in the article have I seen the content that would make it keep-worthy. My question: If this article became a redirect again what would we loose? Averell (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "If the young woman from Seattle were not involved in this case, nobody would have ever heard of Meredith Kircher."<sup style="font-size: 90%;">(Michaelh2001) That statement is ill-thought-out, untrue and offensive.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To adapt Michaelh2001's logic to a higher-profile situation, I wonder if this statement would be considered accurate: "The assassination of a US President does not by itself warrant an article. Sadly, John F. Kennedy is not the only President in history to have been assassinated. The assassination of John F. Kennedy is notable because a man who had briefly defected to the Soviet Union is suspected of being the killer. If the former Soviet defector were not involved in this case, nobody would have ever heard of the assassination of John F. Kennedy." Of course, it would not, because to make assertions of notability based on nationality is viewing the case from completely the wrong end of the telescope.  Super Mario  Man  05:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongest possible keep. Yes this person is notable for a crime, but this person is notable for a crime with worldwide coverage. This article is similar to Jack the Ripper or even Jeffrey Dahmer Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They were serial killers. Malke 2010  18:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's your point? There is still significant world wide coverage. People should really read the one event notability guidelines. Somtimes your case is big enough to warrant a stand alone article. use common sense here. Would Marcus Junius Brutus be remembered if he hadn't committed one crime? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There appears to be little evidence of "significant worldwide coverage" given that, as the article stands, only 14 sources are referenced, and that the majority of those sources are from US media outlets (some of which are questionable in their reliability, to say the least). As time draws on, I suspect that this AfD will be closed with a "No consensus" verdict, but unless the article is going to be expanded to reflect the claims of distinct notability from "Keep"-voters, the question of deletion, redirection or merging is more or less destined to crop up again in the not-too-distant future. As it is, there is nothing in the Amanda Knox article which could not be explained just as accurately, yet much more conveniently, as part of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.  Super Mario  Man  05:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a interesting point. I take this as a example of notability [] ironically the first result is a uk news article. However I think that this point might make me change my opinion. I am going to think about it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect. There's nothing that could go in this article that wouldn't already be included in the Murder of... article. This article is different to Jack the Ripper or Jeffrey Dahmer because neither of the those people is notable as a result of a single event (they are each notable for a series of events). --FormerIP (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect Nothing here that isn't or can't be included in Murder of Meredith Kercher. I imagine any forthcoming fully independent information will just seem trivial so that a stand-alone article won't be justified for the time being. – sgeureka t•c 11:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Amanda Knox might - just might - be an exception to WP:BLP1E... but only if the article includes some verifiable, non-POV information not already in Murder of Meredith Kercher. It doesn't and seemingly never has, so it can't justify a stand-alone article. I would have no objection to recreation should she become notable for a second event. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The relevant portion of the WP:BLP1E guidelines which I think makes a separate article on Knox more than appropriate is: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Hell in a Bucket's above GNews link [] strongly suggests, to me, that Amanda Knox has indeed been the subject of persistent, ongoing coverage. If you review the sources in that link -- all of which are extremely reliable -- their subject is not the murder and/or trial but is instead Amanda Knox. The Hinckley example listed in the BLP1E guidelines is a somewhat interesting corollary but I think it is best-suited to merely illustrate the point -- there are a multitude of individuals notable for, loosely construed, "one event" that are still very clearly notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I argue that the persistent nature of the coverage focused on Amanda Knox passes this hurdle (and, in my opinion, does so by quite a wide margin, but that is more subjective). <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  19:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on my comment: I suppose the rebuttal to this concerns the relative significance of the event (is the attempted assassination of an important U.S. President more significant than the murder of Meredith Kercher? I think the answer to that is "yes" :), which is indeed a valid rebuttal. I think my overall point here is that this is a much more subjective call than one might think if one is just going blindly by the BLP1E guidelines -- the guidelines do not, to my eyes, provide a black-or-white picture of what to do with this article. The guidelines do not provide for semi-automatic deletion of all individuals notable for only one event. <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ginsengbomb, I think you're misunderstanding something here. The portion of WP:BLP1E you cite permits separate articles under certain conditions. But I don't think it should be taken to mean that an article positively needs to be created once a person achieves a certain level of fame. Myra Hindley, for example, doesn't seem to have been considered notable enough outside of the topic of the Moors Murders to warrant her own article. I think the relevant question is not "is she famous enough?", but "is there any point to creating a separate article?". An article on Amanda Knox would be a place to put information about Amanda Knox which is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia but which, for whatever reason, it is not appropriate to include in Murder of Meredith Kercher. Since no such information appears to exist, an Amanda Knox article is surplus to requirements.
 * My impression is that a number of users feel that Amanda Knox has actually become more notable than Meredith Kercher's murder, and that it makes sense for her to have her own article for this reason. It's a bit subjective, but I find it hard to see how a person notable for one event can become more notable than the event itself. I don't think it makes mathematical sense. --FormerIP (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that the portion I'm citing does not necessitate the creation of anything at all. I was arguing that it doesn't exclude the creation of anything, such as an article on Amanda Knox. I disagree that the relevant question is not "is she famous enough" -- that is the essence of the matter in most any AfD (insofar as famous = notable), this one included. That is the "point" which you reference in your second question. There is a point to including an article on any notable topic. The BLP1E guidelines are an attempt to get at the problems surrounding notability for persons associated with one event, but they in no way say "persons notable for one event are not notable," or similar. As for the rest, completely agree that it's all very subjective. This is the essential problem we are grappling with in this AfD -- it's a relatively subjective call, and the guidelines don't offer any easy resolution. As for whether a person can become more notable than the event they are notable for...I would posit that that's actually pretty commonplace. I think Amanda Knox is, by name, clearly more notable than the event which spawned her notability (notoriety? :). Either way, it's also immaterial. Mark David Chapman is hardly, by name, more famous than the event for which he is notable, but he's clearly a valid article in an encyclopedia.  Regardless, let me caveat this entire reply by saying it's almost entirely subjective in nature -- I don't think anything I'm saying is unadulterated truth to your unadulterated falsehood, or vice versa. If that makes sense. Sorry for the lengthy reply. I babble :). <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Break 5

 * Stubify to the trials. The trials make her notable. RussianReversal (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

reiterate - Strong keepKnox has made the murder and the trial notable. Italy has murder trials all the time, do they all have a Wikipedia page? No. This trial is notable because a young woman from Seattle is the accused killer. If anything, the murder page should be merged into the Amanda Knox page. STRONG keep!!Michaelh2001 (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Michaelh2001, you seem to have forgotten a) to log in, and b) that you have already !voted above. Twice.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 19:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into a page name "Amanda Knox" is a very interesting suggestion. It's actually consistent with the brief paragraph that is O._J._Simpson_murder_case, but it's going to be hard to get a similar consensus for naming a murder article after the (more famous) person accused of perpetrating it. --Wragge (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's possible that, as Knox exhausts the appeals process, a standalone article will become desirable. At the moment, I can't see that it is.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 20:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.