Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 5 October 2011

3 October 2011

Amanda Knox

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

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

• Note: I have cleaned up the last version and posted it at User:SamJohnston/Amanda_Knox for your convenience. -- samj _in 21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely all of that information is already on the redirect target.--Scott Mac 21:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn the redirect from Murder of Meredith Kercher to Amanda Knox own article. ASAP. Notable and should have her own article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn the redirect from Murder of Meredith Kercher to Amanda Knox own article. This is most definitely an unusual situation and "Amanda Knox" should be its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Overturn There is simply no rationale for redirecting her page to a murder she was acquitted of. Remove the redirect, and either give her her own page or keep the name Amanda Knox empty on Misplaced Pages. Countercouper (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn ASAP. I understand and support the first redirect, but now notability (and the counter-productiveness of the redirect) is obvious. Dayewalker (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn - as a minimum it is undue to direct her name to a murder she is not guilty of. I support an article - we have a million less notable articles about all sorts of low notable dross/promo crap. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep redirected - Boy, there are a bunch of heated, ill-conceived, in-the-moment overturns here. I keep wishing for editors to stop editing for the moment and try to develop a eye for editing for history, but I find myself disappointed. Repeatedly. Anyways, there is nothing that can be said about Amanda Knox that isn't tied to the murder of Meredith Kercher, this is why WP:BLP1E exists. There is also nothing wrong with the redirection to the murder page, as the mere existence of a redirect isn't prejudicial and does not imply guilt. Note that Casey Anthony is a redirect to the Caylee Anthony murder article. Redirects are largely immune from NPOV concerns anyways, so that argument is particularly weak. Finally, even if there was a rough consensus in support of a Knox article, I feel that DRV is ill-suited to handle it in quite this manner, simply because there is nothing of substance to restore at this time other than half-baked puff pieces in several editors' personal sandboxes. What should have happened here was a new draft created first, a product of a few weeks or so work among interested parties, and then that version is brought to DRV for possible restoration. Put the brakes on this and edit cautiously for once. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. The redirect is a BLP violation. If she isn't notable enough to have an article about her, then there shouldn't be a redirect. Count Iblis (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. Notable person in her own right. --regentspark (comment) 22:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) Been accused of Meredith Kercher’s murder.

b) Been Arrested for Meredith Kercher’s murder.

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

d) Been Acquitted of Meredith Kercher’s murder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Facepalm

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church

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

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

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