Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. This deletion discussion has seen editors arguing strongly from both sides. Those supporting deletion, or redirecting to the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article, which existed for the first 2 days of this AFD, argue that she remains a person known only for one event and that this article is a content fork. This is rebutted by those who support keeping the article, with the strongest arguments being that she is now a very high profile person (thus not the "low-profile individual" that WP:BLP1E describes) due to the large amount of enduring coverage about her. The redirection of the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article to Murder of Meredith Kercher during this AFD slightly weakens the arguments of those calling for redirection, as the only article this could now be redirected to would be Murder of Meredith Kercher. As Courcelles said in closing the previous deletion review, is it "proper to redirect a person's name to a crime they were found not guilty of in a court of law. Under BLP principles, it does not sit well in my mind". However even if the Trials article still existed I would still find a consensus here for keeping this article. Even discounting some of the weaker arguments for keeping, there is a strong consensus here that Amanda Knox is a high profile individual, who is no longer someone known for just one event, and that therefore wikipedia should have an article on her. Davewild (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Knox

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Amanda Knox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion Review

Fork from Murder of Meredith Kercher nothing in this article which is not covered in the murder article. Per WP:BLP1E this article should not really exist. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. Although WP:BLP1E permits an article about a person who receives persistent coverage ("may be appropriate"), it does not require it. Here, the article's content can easily be folded into the murder article, to the extent it's not already there.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The murder article is already very long and becoming uncomfortable to read - it is entirely reasonable to separate out sub-topics into their own articles. It is undeniable that Knox is notable in her own right (her unusual behaviour leading to her doubtful conviction has seen to that), so while she is plainly associated with the murder article, she now receives media coverage of her own (plenty of it, reliable sources). Folding yet more content into the murder article would make that article even longer and more rambling - the point of a Wiki is to allow sub-topics to branch naturally. The "fork" is indicated quite correctly as "main" in the murder article. Let it stay there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every source which mentions her is actually about the murder, she has no notability outside of it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per User:Chiswick Chap. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very high profile participant in a very high profile event. The article should be more of a biography of the subject, and when it is that would be inappropriate for the parent article. Just because the article is not yet finished is no reason to delete it. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E says: " If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". Knox could not possible described as a person who is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Nor is she notable only in the context of a single event, I can think of four: the murder, the trial, the re-trial and her return to north America. Yes, these are related, but they are clearly separate events. They are covered as separate events in the sources. There is no way BLP1E applies here, in my opinion. Knox is very clearly notable. Sparthorse (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, her notability is not purely about the murder. The series of actions and events in which she was involved after the murder made her news, big news, in her own right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: no question of notability of topic (the topic is the murder, the accusation, the time spent in jail and the acquittance - a remarkable series of life events that have received tonnes of news coverage). The murder, trial and retrial is not a single event.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only notable as a BLP1E person charged with a murder - already well covered here at en wikipedia - content has been in some cases cut and copied over from the MoMK article, revealing the duplicity. I am also open to the previously suggested, keep as a stub and fully protect to avoid the redirect to a murder she is not guilty of. Notable topic - yes, the murder. - @Maunus, I fell into that trap in previous discussion - your claims are rebutted just by looking at the article right now Amanda Knox - its all content from elsewhere and its all about the murder and trial of the murder. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current state of the article doesn't impinge on the issue of the notability of the topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't establish notability, either. Sounds like most people who want to keep the article want to do so on the basis of some speculation as to material that isn't in the article but could be in the article if only they could find it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No notability is established by the books an articles that treat the person and life Amanda Knox as their topic and not the court case. We have an entire category of people whose first claim to fame was being acquitted of murder charges, but who went on to generate public interest enough to establish notability for them as subjects of articles. Being acquitted of a high profile murder is an event in itself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knox hasn't gone on to generate more notability or public interest. The real murderer was convicted, and there's no lingering Lizzie Borden or O. J. Simpson spectre about this subject. The existence of a category she'd fit into doesn't show her notability apart from the trial. Everything here about her is connected to the murder, so this subject should be covered there. JFHJr (㊟) 00:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, she certainly has generated significant notability and public interest after the murder. Taking a few examples from this month: article in the Daily Telegraph, article in The Daily Mail, article in the Daily Telegraph, article in THe Christian Post, article in the Montreal Gazette, article in The Washington Post. There are thousands more of these from reliable sources across the globe. These stories relate not to the murder, but to the retrial, Knox's return to the US and her future beyond that. She clearly has notability beyond the murder. Sparthorse (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's celebrity, not notability. Rothorpe (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." These are reliable sources with significant coverage that is independent of the subject. She may be a celebrity, but these sources clearly meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, which is the one that matters for the purpose of this discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dekeep? It all depends on whether the Murder article is getting too crowded, I think. She is not notable other than for being accused of it. Rothorpe (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (failing that, Delete). Since her name is a very plausible search term, outright deletion probably wouldn't be justified. At the moment, however, this article does nothing to distinguish Knox's individual notability from the general notability of Kercher's murder (what I find especially telling is that although the article is very short, Kercher's surname appears no less than six times - as of the time of writing - in what little main article text there actually is). Is there anything here that couldn't just be added to the recently-created "Trials" article? SuperMarioMan 21:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, much of the information in the Knox article shouldn't be in a trials artice (life in prison, life after prison, image in media, early life, etc). Second, the Knox article should grow, and the the growth will naturally be in areas outside of the trials. Third, the trials article seems no longer to exist.LedRush (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, much of the information in the Knox article shouldn't be in a trials artice (life in prison, life after prison, image in media, early life, etc). Second, the Knox article should grow, and the the growth will naturally be in areas outside of the trials. Third, the trials article seems no longer to exist. (and rightfully so).LedRush (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not exactly a "few days ago" but apparently on a WP:DRV of the 2010 consensus to delete. Still, the result of the DRV should be here (I was unaware of it). Here it is: [1]. I have no idea what the protocol is as to what is permissible after a DRV.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it depends on whether or not you consider 11 days "a few days". Only giving a newly recreated article 11 days to develop and mature after being undeleted seems far too short to me. A few months at least should be given before bringing this article back up for deletion. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BLP1E does not apply in cases that span many years the person is a not a low profile individual. She's as high profile as it gets, and while people may not like the subject matter, the thousands of RSs per year, over a period of years is what should determine this. The murder is actually the only 1E part of the story. Merge that into this article if you must. The media coverage after the murder is what it's all about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would one write into her article that doesn't tie back to the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito or the Murder of Meredith Kercher? It really is just one ball of wax.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. Merging the murder article into this one? I'm interested to know how that would work. Nothing about Knox's life prior to 2007 is notable. Everything that relates to her - from trial and conviction to appeal and acquittal - seems to be more or less inextricable from Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The existence of both this BLP and the trials article serves little or no purpose other than to duplicate masses of article content and fragment talk page discussion. There is no compelling rationale that I can see for retaining both of these spin-out articles - my view is that it should be one or the other. SuperMarioMan 03:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, much of the information in the Knox article shouldn't be in a trials artice (life in prison, life after prison, image in media, early life, etc). Second, the Knox article should grow, and the the growth will naturally be in areas outside of the trials. Third, the trials article seems no longer to exist. Finally, the trials article must be kept with the murder one as you cannot understand one without the other. The Knox article, on the other hand, should contain information only on Knox, and should contain the trials that only involve her. That allows the other article to be more focused on topic and makes both articles better.LedRush (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've noticed that the "Trials..." article has recently been redirected ("re-redirected", given that Trial of Knox and Sollecito existed as an article once). However, I'd argue that information about imprisonment wouldn't be out of place in a "Trials" article, because it all relates to the same judicial processes. Two articles titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito", as a concept, seems to me to be just as a good method of controlling article length. Furthermore, a "Trials" article that discusses both Knox and Sollecito would have the potential to be more comprehensive. SuperMarioMan 18:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No part of WP:GNG is violated, the person has made the headlines of newspapers and media networks world wide, endless internet articles can be found on this person, even a movie has been made if this person. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep An admin just decided that the article should be allowed a few days ago. BLP1E is not applicable as it takes a ridiculous twist of logic to think that this four experience is now only one event, and regardless Knox is not a low profile individual. Things that should be in this article that would not be in a trials article include her life while in jail (you have have noticed the several hundred articles on this, or the book devoted only to this) and her life after release (include her very public press conference in Seattle).LedRush (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV did conclude that BLP1E was inapplicable to this case. That seems pretty darn relevant to me.LedRush (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The controversial trial, appeal and evidence represent significant, high-profile events in themselves. Kercher's parents made a valid and relevant point when they complained that the story had become about Amanda Knox's guilt or innocence rather than about their daughter's murder - unfortunate for them, but definitely relevant here. If anything, the Knox interrogation/trial should be moved to this page: as it stands, the "Murder of..." page is long, unwieldy and largely about Amanda Knox rather than the incident it is titled for. Jas88 (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per WP:BLP1E, which includes as a necessary condition for deletion: "and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual..." Amanda Knox (the subject of how many books now?) is not a low-profile individual and it is preposterous to suggest otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It doesn't matter how high profile the individual is, or how high profile the event is, if they are only notable for a single event (which the murder/trial/appeal etc. effectively is) then BLP1E applies. Without wanting to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, I'd suggest that editors look at, for example, Myra Hindley, possibly the most famous British murderess in history. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know a ton about Myra, but I don't believe she was involved in a murder that wasn't noteworthy, then attracted four years of media basically because of her looks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP1E says otherwise -- it refers explicitly to the notion that one must be a "low-profile individual" in order to delete on grounds of "one event". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • BLP1E is a guideline and doesn't use categorical words like "must". What it says is, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Similarly, when it addresses whether an article on a person is permissible, it says, "may be appropriate".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is precisely that wording that makes it inappropriate to hold that per BLP1E it "doesn't matter how high profile the individual is" as Black Kite wrote. Okay, fine, it's a guideline -- but the guideline counsels the opposite of what Black Kite wrote. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My reading of Black Kite's comment is that Knox was high-profile during the event but isn't likely to remain high profile later, which is what the guideline addresses.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, that would be WP:CRYSTAL, but actually a separate point would be that Knox actually wasn't particularly high profile except for bursts of WP:NOT#NEWS at the original arrests and verdicts. The main point is that I'm basically unconvinced as to what we're adding to the encyclopedia by having the bio and the other articles - seems redundant. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject definitely meets criteria for notability. It is illogical to think we won't be hearing from her in the future after the trial is ended. Compare with the legions of individuals who are WP:BLP we have never heard of. Come on, folks, move on. Dougbremner (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • More editorial speculation as to Knox's future and more irrelevant references to other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, looking just at this one case, Knox is clearly notable (and the huge discussion here shows everybody feels they know about her; perhaps some wish she wasn't notable, but perhaps that's the point). And whatever her unknown future, she is today known for not one but a series of notable events.Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing as Bbb23 is waging a campaign to keep as much information as possible out of the Knox article, his arguments here that there isn't enough information in the article seem disingenuous at best.LedRush (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL. Your edits to the article are awful. And I'm not alone in that view (indeed, you're the only person arguing for inclusion of the material). We won't even get into the fact that your assertions are BLP violations. Just because the article is being discussed here doesn't mean the article's integrity goes by the wayside.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets criterias for notability that are established by the wikipedia community. Also we will definitly hear more from this person in media over time. I cant see any sufficient reason to delete this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some people who are accused of high-profile crimes get their own article, and some don't. I don't think there's any rhyme or reason to it, other than there being editors who want to do the work. As for the Trials article I created it in part as a placeholder for a lot of content that otherwise might have been deleted from MoMK. Once the latter article is more stable we can revisit this issue. Brmull (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito or otherwise delete Trial article and redirect it to Amanda Knox. It is crazy that was is effectively the same information is being spread over three articles. Personally, I think if you take a step back, breathe and look at this with some objectivity a lot of her notability is a result of a PR campaign and tabloid press - if it weren't for the PR campaign she wouldn't be notable: see Raffaele Sollecito, Patrick Lumumba and Rudy Guede - all accused of the same crime and lacking the same media attention / wiki articles. A lot of her notability is residual from this campaign and I think it remains to be seen whether she will actually remain in the public light or this case will fade like many wrongful convictions. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Redirect to Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, which is the only event she is notable for, just as Meredith Kercher is a redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher. First Light (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect; trials of article has a better scope for this material. --Errant (chat!) 09:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that's not the case. The trials article is best kept merged with the murder article (it is impossible to tell one story without the other) but the Knox article can provide much information about a notable subject that cannot be contained in either a trials article or the murder one (for example, the widely reported aspects of her life in prison; her post prison press conference; the current media attention around her every move; the trials that involve only Knox and not Sollecito; the films, documentaries and books which revolve around Knox, and not Sollecitor or the murder). Having the Knox article should allow for more focused and better articles about the murder and trials. However, the murder article and the trials article will continue to be content forks that make understanding the whole event harder than it otherwise would be.LedRush (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree; all of the media relating to Knox is set in the context of the trials & IMO is best dealt with there. The biography article is just an invitation to invade her privacy over insignificant matters and is just a redundant content fork. --Errant (chat!) 16:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your contention that the media attention is in the context of the trials is demonstrably false, as proven multiple times on this page. Also, the trials article has now been redirected to MoMK (and rightfully so, in my opinion).LedRush (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; not a single article has been presented with no relationship or reliance on the trial/murder events. Absolutely everything from her time in prison to hounding her after her release is related to the trial in the most direct sense (i.e. that it would not even exist without the trial/murder). What I am asking for is an entirely independent article which is not related to or inspired by the trial events; to make up examples, perhaps a publisher paper, or a news article from before the murder, or some other event she has been involved in. Something where the drive to write the material is not related to her being wrongly convicted in Italy. This has not been presented. Her only notability exists in relation to her being tried for murder. --Errant (chat!) 14:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to keep moving the goal posts. While your question is an interesting one, it has no bearing on this discussion. Everyone here admits that but for her connection to the murder, she would not have become famous. But now she unquestionably is, just as she is unquestionably notable. The news reports on many things outside of the murder, including her press conferences, her life and treatment in jail, her connection to an Italian band (for which she wrote the screenplay to their music video), her connection to an Italian lawmaker, etc, etc.). It is true that she would not have had the opportunity to meet the band or the lawmaker (who wrote a book on her not about the murder) had she not been in jail, but I don't see that nexus as being even remotely the standard that WP uses with regards to BLP1E.LedRush (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, to be fair my goal posts are consistent; to find things unrelated to the murder/trials to establish some form of notability and substantial content worth creating a biographical article for. But now she unquestionably is, just as she is unquestionably notable; I staunchly question it, as do others. Her notability is tied inherently to the trial.
  • including her press conferences; related directly to her trial & release
  • her life and treatment in jail; potentially interesting, more worthwhile in an event article with context & directly related to that event
  • her connection to an Italian band (for which she wrote the screenplay to their music video); one line. Not enough to establish independent notability, and really just a footnote to the media orgy.
  • her connection to an Italian lawmaker; same again, though their relationship is more directly related to the trial/murder/imprisonment event

So I disagree - all of this is content related to the trial (albeit colour around the edges of the core material) and is better dealt with there. There is nothing unrelated to the trial event about this woman that we can record. I strongly disagree that "the trial" purely means "times when she was in court" - that is not sensible or logical for our readers. If she continues to maintain notability; for example using the notoriety to continue a career in some form etc. then I am with you. Till then, no dice. --Errant (chat!) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've changed the goal posts at least a couple times on this page alone. You've claimed that she "hardly made the press" other than at the start and end of the trial, though that is demonstrably false. You've claimed that the news reports on her have died down to "barely anything", though that is demonstrably false. Now you are making a claim regarding independent notability which seems to define "one event" in a way which defies all logic and reason. Our readers expect an article on Knox. Not having one is a disservice to them and a misreading of WP policy.LedRush (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep BLP1E reads, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Amanda Knox is not a low profile person. A low profile person is not somebody whose name is well known, who has had several movies made with her name in the title, nor a person who has had numerous books written about with their name in the title. Is she primarily known for the murder/trial/acquittal? Yes. But there is no way that we can say that she is "low profile" when it is the lead story years after the event and so highly utilized.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And seeing as she gives press conferences and releases information from her letters/memoirs to much media attention, the whole idea of her being low profile is absurd.LedRush (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since mid October, coverage has trailed off to barely anything. That's pretty telling so soon after acquittal. Compare that to, say, Strauss-Kahn whose arrest/release was some time ago now, and still getting reported on. Hard to say for sure but this is likely it for the moment - at least till the prosecution appeals. Apart from the media around the time of the start/end of trials she has hardly made the press. --Errant (chat!) 16:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6,620 articles in the last week about Knox hardly seems to support your assertion. [2]. By comparison, Strauss-Kahn has 6,920. [3] Seems pretty comparable to me.LedRush (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; S-K ended two months ago (almost to the day). Less than a month after her release Knox has the same coverage. Most of which is the sort of mundane follow up crud that the media does. So... --Errant (chat!) 17:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as Knox is not the former head of the IMF or leading member of a major political party, I don't see how the similar results don't completely gut your argument.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No coverage except for around the trial and her release? What are you talking about? Try typing in Amanda Knox a month and a year since the trial and today and see how many millions of hits you get. How many of those hits are notable sources? How many of them are "trivial coverage" as compared to about Amanda Knox? Just because she wasn't front page news for the past 2 years does not mean that she wasn't covered in depth by Major media outlets... had numerous books written with her name in the title... or movies/documentaries produced. The notion that there has been no meaningful coverage outside of conviction/release is demonstratably false to the point of being absurd.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe this is happenning. The entry has barely been started. How many people with 35 million hits on Google do not have a Wikipedia entry? Of course the article should stay. There is much detail about the shocking behaviour of the Perugia police and prosecutor that should be in this article though it would be too much detail for the main trial piece. There needs to be more about media coverage and the way the case was fought over by obstructionist Wikipedia editors who were convinced of guilt and used Wikipedia as a platform to persecute her and Raffaele. NigelPScott (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Find me a source with no relation to her trial & imprisonment and I will support you :) --Errant (chat!) 20:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it, find a source that shows that "the case was fought over by obstructionist Wikipedia editors who were convinced of guilt and used Wikipedia as a platform to persecute her and Raffaele." pablo 11:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is indisputably notable; indeed her name is the one most associated with the crime she was acquitted of. There will likely be interviews, a memoir, and even possibly a(nother) feature film with her name in the title in the future. (The likelihood of all this is already being reported on in the media.)Komponisto (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After all that, Wikipedia having just one article should be a relief. Rothorpe (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per Bbb23 and also since the notability argument fails. A BLP person can be notable for something they have done in their life - but surely not for something they have not done. In the complete absence of notability for something she has done, a right to privacy to her non notability for anything she has done should prevail here, otherwise WP simply becomes an organ for speculation and what ifs.isfutile:P (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable for her role in the crime, the media attention surrounding it, and her responses and reactions to it. It's not like we just heard of her when she got acquitted.LedRush (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
isFutile P, the easiest way to answer your question is to consult the notability guideline which says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject." Notability is judged by the extent and quality of the independent coverage. Since there are thousands of published, secondary sources on Knox, she is notable. No other factor is relevant to answering your question. Sparthorse (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I said this during the recent DRV and I'll say it again: Once the media started focusing on Knox's personal life outside of her role in the Kercher case, she outgrew WP:BLP1E. At this point, her personal objections (if any) would carry little weight (Would we delete the articles of world leaders and/or celebrities upon their requests?). The article has developed steadily over the past several weeks, and I see great potential for more development; the timing of this nomination is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. TML (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, Speedy Keep: It beggars belief that we're having this conversation *again*. I kicked off the DRV as an uninvolved editor after being surprised that there was nowhere to find information about the woman herself that wasn't intertwined with the MoMK story. Throughout I provided counterarguments and referenced various articles in reliable sources that dealt with Amanda, in detail, with passing or no reference to MoMK. If she were actively trying to maintain a low profile then I might find that relevant, but that's a stretch and in any case she's had a *lot* of attention whether she likes it or not; notability is not temporary and all. -- samj inout 09:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since returning to the US she certainly seems to have actively been trying to maintain a low profile. Apart from the paparazzi trailing her there has been no media interaction to my knowledge since just after her return. I must have missed the sources unrelated to the murder/trial in the DRV, apologies, care to give a quick summary again? --Errant (chat!) 09:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, holding press conferences, releasing letters/memoirs which contain accusations of sexual harassment, and having your family conduct dozens of interviews on your behalf is actually the opposite of a low profile. So much so that it's in the definition of what takes you out of low profile.LedRush (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • :S FWIW those articles range from tabloid speculative trash inspired by her notoriety in relation to the trials, material directly related to the trials (even if they make no mention of Kercher) and simple follow up in the week or so after her return home. All of which is related to her trial & imprisonment. --Errant (chat!) 14:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(also, if that is the quality of material that is being proposed to add to her article, then I even more strongly re-iterate my support for removal. What a lot of BLP invading tabloid nonsense! Anyone trying to add much of that should be banned from going anywhere near BLP articles) --Errant (chat!) 14:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see the old 'keep AfDing until the result is delete' strategy is alive & well. --Gwern (contribs) 17:46 25 October 2011 (GMT)
Actually, this is this articles first AFD... the previous article WAS deleted via AFD and a DRV basically concluded that the old AFD was outdated and would have to go through the process again.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. She is the type of person who will get coverage down the road, in the "Where is she now" type motif.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Knox is most definitely notable in her own right, as evidenced by her popularity in the media, her free-spirited and often wildly eccentric behavior (especially in the days following the murder and in her dealings with Italian authorities), her "confusedly-"made murder confession, and not to mention the fact that she was falsely accused and convicted of murder. If she had been convicted of and
        subsequently exonerated for that same crime here in the States, she would certainly be a public figure of notoriety and entitled to her own Wiki entry. Regarding the veracity of the details of the crime and Amanda's treatment while in custody, it is widely accepted that the events have been portrayed accurately based on a conglomeration of similar accounts. Reliable sources include authors, such            as Candace Dempsey, who have painstakingly investigated every facet of this case, as well as journalists, friends of the parties involved who witnessed the events first-hand, and even state officials. It's fine that the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article briefly touches on Knox, but Amanda certainly deserves her own entry. ::::::Silver Harshy (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Knox is most certainly notable in her own right. The news stories about her are only peripherally related to the murder; to the extent that they are related to events, they are related to her false conviction and exoneration, not to the murder. People who are famous for being falsely convicted aren't generally thought of in the context of their wrongly alleged victims.
To be honest, while I'm not proposing deleting the article, it's the murder of Kercher that is questionably notable. If it hadn't been for the controversy surrounding Knox, it would have been just another forgotten murder. Of the events, it was the trial that was notable, not the murder.
Warren Dew (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has two books published about her personal opinions and attitudes. Two books would be pretty impressive for a senator. Passeggiando con Amanda has been translated, and I believe (though haven't confirmed) "Take me with you" has as well. That of course excludes another dozen books about the trial, a made for a TV movie, the fact that she is a character in a upcoming major feature film and something like 22k articles when this issue came up a few weeks ago. And of course since then there have continued to be new tabloid materials. She is so clearly over the notability guidelines, there shouldn't even be a discussion. CD-Host (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guidance is: "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" (emphasis mine). By this criteria, the persistence of coverage makes a bio of Knox suitable for inclusion. Further, I agree with Warren Dew: Knox is more notable than the "Murder of Meredith Kretcher" (i.e. there is a higher probability that the average person will of Amanda Knox than there is that they'll know of Meredith Kretcher. SocratesJedi | Talk 04:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person is as notable as many who have pages - even those who are notable only for a singular event. I agree with Warren Dew to cut and paste a comment here.....: Knox is more notable than the "Murder of Meredith Kretcher" (i.e. there is a higher probability that the average person will of Amanda Knox than there is that they'll know of Meredith Kretcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.220.246 (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW? -- samj inout 17:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest that invoking WP:SNOW would be a bad idea. This is a substantive debate and whatever the outcome, it would be more acceptable and likely clearer if the AfD is allowed to run and a clear ruling by an uninvolved admin is made to close it on policy grounds. Sparthorse (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, SNOW is not a real option here. About a third of the people who have chimed in have done so to delete or redirect this article. While 2/3rds want to keep it and barring some significant change it should be kept, there are enough people who don't want it kept to let this thing run the process.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call. -- samj inout 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable, anyone who wants this article deleted must have some kind of agenda. A line from the article sums up her notability nicely: "In June 2009, due to all her televised court hearings, an Italian television poll listed Amanda Knox as a bigger personality than Carla Bruni." Carla Bruni is really hot and famous, so anyone more famous than her should clearly not have her article deleted. 24.5.68.9 (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources affirming notability have been laboriously provided by numerous editors and include published books, television broadcasts, magazine and news articles. In addition, the acquitted (apologies if I'm not getting the Italian legal nuances right) Amanda Knox continues to generate media interest in the U.S., U.K., and in Italy. This is the very definition of "notable." Further, as Warren Dew points out, the murder that she was accused of, and which ironically has its highly contested but well-established WP article, would have vanished from public discussion long ago were it not for the strange accusations against Knox, in particular. It does not seem coincidental that a Google search for "Amanda Knox" invariably leads the inquirer to the WP "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article, whereas a search for "Raffaele Sollecito" does not. It's as if the motivation for deleting this article is to ensure that Ms. Knox does not have an identity separate from the "Murder," which gives the appearance of back-door victimization of the subject. October 2011 (UTC)Christaltips (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be deleted and a redirect of the name Amanda Knox set to the main murder trial article. What qualifies her to notability is the case of Meredith's murder. There is nothing about her claim to notability that is not covered in the murder article. The media intrest she has generated has continued to be about her being linked to the murder by the police. Similar article is that on Vincent Tabak available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Tabak which is re-directed to the Murder article available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates . The focus should be on the victims. We are humans for God's sake. Let's show some respect. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8turn (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knox is also a victim, having her name sent to a murder she didn't commit is also disrespectful. Issymo (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Balloonman that the lady's fame is notable enough for an article but when I look at the article itself I can't help but think that it fails my conception of an encyclopedia. Most of the sexual harassment material and the release section, for example, don't have a place on wikipedia. I'll just register my discomfort and move on without expressing a preference either way. --regentspark (comment) 17:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable. Her name and the injustice done to her are both very notable. Issymo (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yet again, we have fanatic deletionists obsessed with blotting out any Amanda Knox page. It's absurd and creepy that this continues. Keep the article and ban the deletionists who keep raising this same issue. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is notable and has been notable for some time now.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Guilty or innocent (and it seems clear now she surely is innocent) Knox is the fulcrum of this entire episode. It is not so much that she is known because of the murder of Kercher; but rather the murder of Kercher is known because someone like Knox was claimed to have been involved with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lane99 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Knox_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144418293"