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 merge to Murder of Meredith Kercher. There is consensus that this should not be a separate article, mainly because it is currently seen as a POV fork, but there is no conensus to outright delete it.  Sandstein  07:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Knox and Sollecito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been created supposedly as a sub page of Murder of Meredith Kercher. However, it appears to duplicate mainly the same content but with a slightly different slant better suited to the POV of the user who created it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the trial of Knox and Sollecito is intimately tied up with the subject of the Murder of Meredith Kercher and, as such, should logically be part of the same page. Currently, the two articles cover much of same ground but diverge in some of their interpretation. This may be intentional, as suggested by FormerIP above, or it could be the inevitable consequence of two articles about essentially the same subject, with slightly different groups of contributors. The material from the trial sub-page should be merged back into various sections of the main article (much of it is not in fact specific to the trial). Bluewave (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [So, to be clear, that's a vote for merge] Bluewave (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I am not sure if it is acceptable to add to my rationale, but I would like to make a few other points. Firstly, the original reason for the sub page was because of the size of the article. At the time the raw text was about 48kb, which is not enormous, when there are a lot of citations etc included in that length. The original article is now 57kb but I believe there is a a certain amount of duplication and that the topic could easily be handled by a single well-written article. I feel there is a body of opinion that would like to extend the article so that all the trial evidence is set out in full so that readers can form an opinion about whether they agree with the verdict of the court. I don't believe that is the purpose of an encyclopaedia: we should summarise the main areas of evidence and the main arguments used by prosecution and defence, but not try to re-run the trials! Hence, I don't think the article needs to be massively expanded. A second point is that one of the comments, below, suggests that the title is wrong. This issue should be addressed by seeking consensus on the main page, not by creating a second article with a different title. A third point is in answer to a comment below that 'many think Knox/Sollecito are simply the "murderers"'. I'm not sure if my own contribution suggest that I am one of these people, but I can't see anyone using the quoted word "murderers", other than the person who wrote that comment. If it were indeed true that the two articles divided into the views of those who perceive the defendants as murderers and those who do not, I would argue that this is a very good reason for having a single article and forcing the two camps to reach a consensus. Bluewave (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with FormerIP above, currently the page looks like a POV fork, Delete. rturus (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Murder of Meredith Kercher and redirect. This page shouldn't have been created in the first place, there's not that much content in the original article that it would require a content fork. Some time to cleanup there will be much better spent. Averell (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It shouldn't be merged because this page is little more than POV refutations of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito, presenting none of the evidence supporting their conviction or evidence, or at least counter-claims, that imply Knox's claims (e.g. being interrogated non stop for 14 hours) to be lies. The article should be deleted, not because it's biased (although it clearly is) but because it adds nothing objective new and there is no distinction between Meredith Kercher's murder and Knox and Sollecito's conviction, therefore to merge the two articles would poison the original with more POV conjecture. 91.104.86.128 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. It's too confusing and cumbersome having two articles when just the one would suffice. It should be merged with Murder of Meredith Kercher.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rename to Amanda Knox. There should be an article on her, with it primary content related to this trial, at it is what she is most notable for, being accused and tried for this crime. The murder of Meredith Kercher article should be renamed to Meredith Kercher, with its primary content on her murder, at it is what she is most notable for (within the context of this encyclopedia, not to those close to her or knew her personally). Quikf (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean "turn it into something completely different". Furthermore, in Wikipedia we prefer to cover the event, not the people. Neither person involved in the crime is noteable in any other way, so I don't see any reason to have separate articles on them. Averell (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The name "Amanda Knox" is viewed on Wikipedia 10x times more often than Meredith Kercher, so perhaps the title "Amanda Knox" should be redirected to the trial article. Interest in the Kercher-murder-article only soared to 600,000 pageviews after the conviction of Knox/Sollecito.

• Merge back to main article. Absolutely do not rename it to Amanda Knox: the very suggestion confirms the view that it should be merged back. It can easily got at the end, after the Timeline of investigations and before the press comment. Then it can be cleaned up. Do not delete before merging. --Red King (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The intention of this page appears simply to be an attempt to circumvent the partial lockdown of the main page discussing the murder and trial, and to legitimize a point-of-view that other contributions made by the original editor show clearly to be pro-Amanda Knox, and (amongst other things) anti-Italian. If pages like this are not deleted, I believe the general legitimacy of the Wikipedia project as a whole will be brought into disrepute.--Plasticmanic (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The trial of Amanda Knox & Sollecito ended only a few days ago, and the sources, many written in Italian, have yet to be fully translated and analyzed to add details to this page. We don't delete articles just because they contain only 15 paragraphs or "just 28kb" of text. Many editors are relying on Google Translate or Babelfish, with hints from some Italian-fluent readers, to be able to insert more carefully researched information. This takes time. The murder of Kercher is not the same as the trial of Knox/Sollecito. Others have tried to argue that Amanda Knox, condemned as a killer, does not "deserve a separate article" compared to Meredith Kercher, but this article is about the trial of both Knox and Sollecito, who were also convicted and sentenced on the same day. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Again, please understand that many major sources for the article are written in Italian. Here is one such large webpage from the Italian judge:

"Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, webpage (Google Translation, Italian to English): TrGoogle-9asK, Italian webpage: Penale750 (accessed 2009-12-12).

Hence, it will take longer to expand the article with actual text from the trial transcripts, rather than fill the page with questionable claims from English-speaking interpretations of the Italian-language events. The impact to English Wikipedia, about the trial, has been the years of media coverage about the bilingual American girl and her 2-week boyfriend, after only 6 weeks with the British Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. It is months too soon to claim the page will always be so small as to be easily merged & deleted. You ain't seen nothin' yet. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above comment. The judgement mentioned above is the judgement resulting from the trial of of Rudy Guede (as is obvious from its title). It is highly relevant to the Murder of Meredith Kercher but should barely be mentioned in an article desctribing the trial of Knox and Sollecito. This is a good example of how this sub-article is actually spreading out to cover the same material as the main article from which it was derived. Bluewave (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The reason (at the top) for this AfD claims "created supposedly as a sub page", which is a misleading remark, because the talk-page directly states, at the start, the article was created "as a subarticle" to be expanded (see: "Talk:Trial of Knox and Sollecito#Created"). There is nothing to suppose about the purpose of the article. Any claims to the contrary seem to violate WP:AGF, and the tone of the AfD appears to conclude the subarticle is a "bad-faith" attempt to "slant" a page for POV-biased views. Hence, this AfD must be rejected for improper reasons to request a deletion. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (article needed for non-bias): From responses above, apparently many think Knox/Sollecito are simply the "murderers" only. So the main article should be considered as titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher by her murderers Knox/Sollecito". Thank you for that insight. Obviously, now, the trial absolutely must be separated, as a different article. It must be kept separate to avoid the pre-judged impression of Knox/Sollecito as simply the murders of Kercher in the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" while the appellate-court re-trials are being conducted all during 2010. I finally understand the viewpoint of that article as being "Meredith Kercher and all the worthless people around her" who are too low to be named in the title. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're only supposed to register your "keep" once, Wikid. --FormerIP (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, your rationale for keeping this article is that Knox/Sollecito get to be in an article title too? Wow. Averell (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it might seem trivial, but actually, titles have been crucial in Wikipedia for years. Based on policies WP:Notability & WP:UNDUE, the title of an article has been assumed to pinpoint the notable subject. For years, people have removed information from articles, based on the title. For example, expect people to complain, "That article is about *Murder of Kercher* not the life problems of Knox, so I've removed all the off-topic details about Knox" (!?!?!). If "Knox" is not in the title, then expect complains when "Kercher" occurs in the article only 28 times, while "Knox" occurs 999 times, as an objection per WP:UNDUE. Again, that might seem unfair, but "Knox" and "Sollecito" should be in a title to justify extensive details about them (as no longer "off-topic"). I hope that helps explain why titles are crucial in Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate spinoff article given the importance of the trial apart from the precipitating event as evidenced in numerous articles in media outlets worldwide, as well as intervention of government officials in both Italy and the US. Alternatively, spinoff individuals involved in the case as in other similar high-profile criminal cases. Christaltips (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)— Christaltips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Merge with Murder of Meredith Kercher. POV fork that if merged can create a more thorough article. A "Murder of..." article ought to cover all events, including trial, and splitting this one out limits how much the original can do so. Grsz¹¹ 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in Wikipedia that bans text from a main article, where that text is expanded in more detail within a subarticle. That's why wikilinks exist: to allow easy cross-connections, between articles, as if they were sections of a single, integrated whole. It is not valid to claim that the article "Earth" has been unfairly separated with subarticles about continents and nations that limit what can be said about the Earth. Wikilinks re-connect the separate pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a murder case with much procedural complexity and factual complexity. It will become more complex as it winds its way through the appellate process. The case is of major international significance. There is not enough room in the main article to cover all the issues without making it too long for the reader. Breaking the topic down into a subarticle will allow for more thorough coverage of the issues to better inform the reader, than a single article will allow. PilgrimRose (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The differences between the article about the Murder of Merdith Kercher and this article about the process of Amanda Knox and Sollecito is a list of controversies, poorly or no sourced that contrast with the entire subject of the article, the process. Let's say I write an article about "Apples" and I put a section entitled "Negative aspects of apples" inserting content that says that apples are not healty because poor of proteins and other negative points. That section would be POV. Instead, if we have a neuter section on the "Features" we could put over there that there's a lot of fibers in apples (positive aspects), but nothing proteins (negative aspects). In this article we have the content from Murder of Meredith Kercher plus a section containing the so called "Various controversies" (POV and heavy unreferenced). With this content, this is sufficient the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - word "Controversy" is neutral: Generally, in Wikipedia the word "Controversy" has been used as POV-neutral (as opposed to the slanted word "Criticism" implying a anti/negative view). As indicated in the article-talkpage, sources are allowed to decry a trial as controversially "Too lenient" and insist that Knox/Sollecito be instantly hanged & burned, as was done in Florence during the 1400s. However, I checked & found no such "cry for hanging". I would have added more controversies, but I have been so busy restoring text, over & over, when illegally deleted "because it was so POV" and explaining, over & over, that Wikipedia does not delete text that has a viewpoint, but only when unverifiable or copyvio text. It is not the goal of Wikipedia to "document ultimate truth" but rather to include all major (verifiable) viewpoints, as an all-encompassing treatment, hence the word "encyclopedia" as encircling all views. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted, because honestly this case is still controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.17.233 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — 58.172.17.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.