Deletion of Amanda Knox

Comment: At 20:03 on 9 June 2010, I restored the contents of the article, which had been 65% blanked (removed) for almost 3 hours. Per fD, an article, during an Article-for-Deletion discussion, cannot be blanked, in order for other users to assess all the article's contents for  or other concerns
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:BLP)

Comment: to Murder of Meredith Kercher, per , which states
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: the article per  and . I don't see why a stand alone article is required for Knox when the pertinent information is already included in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, it just serves to further disparage the subject. If, as Averell23 states above "The other article (Murder of Meredith Kercher) was becoming overshadowed by Knox's legal cases", then it appears that  applies. The article does not need to include every motion and minor civil case surrounding Knox, just a NPOV sourced paragraph clearly outlining the pertinent details of the trial(s) and the outcome(s) once known
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Knox is clearly known only in relation to one thing. However, I do acknowledge that BLP1E does give grounds for an article on an individual if there role within an event is substantial. At this point Knox may justify having a separate article, as she has received a lot of coverage. But, all of that coverage is in relation to the event, and it is an event that is still ongoing. In 10 years time we may be able to write a good article on her as an individual, but at the moment it is all intimately tied to the event. Introducing excessive biographical details, or focusing on the other minor prosecutions, would fail . There shouldn't be anything in this article that couldn't be in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. In addition the first reincarnation of this page was a clear POV fork, and it will require constant watching over and is likely to be subject to numerous edit wars and disputes (as evidenced by the history today already). As such redirect and protect is the best thing to do
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per Quantpole's rationale.  Seems pretty obvious at this point- of course, that could change, but |we can wait until then
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I recognize the POVFORK and BLP1E arguments have their merits, but the bottom line is that Knox is just too notable at this point not tto have her own article.  I think that Konx has become a cause celebre in certain circles and that the details of her life are of enough interest to ttranscend ; either the murder article will drown with too much detail, or info that is worth keeping will be lost.  I could be convinced ootherwise, but the weight of the arguments above (at least the better ones) hasn't convinced me yet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Per policy fD, the contents of an article should not be blanked during the Article-for-Deletion discussion. A hollowed article can give the appearance that there is insufficient content to justify a separate article. Any users who have blanked the article contents, should restore that text to avoid violation of fD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:A)

Comment: I entirely agree with Black Kite; this is just another  article to soapbox for Knox's innocence; Knox is a clear case of 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to Murder of Meredith Kercher, as this is an obvious 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Amanda Knox might - just might - be an exception to ... but only if the article includes some verifiable, non-POV information not already in Murder of Meredith Kercher. It doesn't and seemingly never has, so it can't justify a stand-alone article. I would have no objection to recreation should she become notable for a second event
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)