Talk:Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. The consensus below is clear that this article should stay at its current name for now, although there is no prejudice towards a spin-off article on the trial of Knox and Sollecito, and I believe such discussions are ongoing. Regarding this, FT2 makes a very good point that warrants repeating - such an article should be handled very sensitively, particularly given the subjects' acquittal. fish&karate 14:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case → Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito – The murder of Meredith Kercher article now contains a great deal of largely irrelevant information about various individuals now acquitted of the crime. The developing consensus is that a Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article should be created and I do not believe that an additional Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case article is justified (in any case there were multiple cases, one of which convicted Rudy Guede, and there may be more to come).

The trial itself is verifiably notable, as is the murder, as is Amanda Knox (whose AfD was vacated at WP:DRV). Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba are unlikely sufficiently notable for dedicated articles (per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME), however redirecting them to an article about a murder they were acquitted of is arguably a WP:BLP violation. Separate articles on the murder, the trial(s) and Amanda herself would provide better delineation between issues with little risk of content forking. -- samj _in ^out 17:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. My reasoning at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Split apart sections of the article into Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito pretty much sums up why I support a separate article on the trial. With that in place, an additional timeline article like this wouldn't be necessary as all the information should already be covered. What's already here would be a decent basis to start the new article with, so we wouldn't lose anything from the move. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The place to discuss whether a spin-out article on Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is needed is at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher. The current proposed move is silly, because this is an article on the events generally that have followed on from the murder. It is clearly not an article spun out from the main one specifically to expand on the minutiae of the trial for reasons of detail, to provide material at a level of detail beyond the WP:DUE review of investigations and trials that one would expect to find in the standard WP article on a notable murder case. That is what could conceivably justify such a spin-out trial article (though there are good reasons to try to keep everything together just in the one article). But this present article is nothing like that. One can discuss whether as an outline the present article is redundant, and should simply be replaced with a redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher. But it simply is not what a WP article expanding on the trial would be expected to look like, so proposing this as a "move" makes no sense. This article does not provide the basis of what such an artice should look like. Jheald (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A timeline of a complex or lengthy case of wide public interest is encyclopedic and useful. "Timeline of X" articles often don't fit well into the existing article on the actual event as they are often long and very detailed - in fact we have many of them on different topics. This clearly is such a timeline. Keep it focused. The alternate title would effectively signify a rewritten article and mean this one would be lost. Hence oppose to prevent effective loss of this useful article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This timeline is not complex (like Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents) and fits well in a section, at least until such time as the article grows. -- samj _in ^out 14:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on nominator's rationale - WP:BLP doesn't mean "erase and delink people who were acquitted". It means "If we do mention them, and when we do mention them, do so as normal but to an especially high standard of care with regard to neutrality and sourcing, and be conservative with regard to extraneous matters that don't add much and can reasonably be left out". Saying "X came to attention in notorious murder case Y, in which evidence was considered and these events took place, and X was then acquitted for these reasons", is exactly compliant with BLP. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call linking someone's name to a "Murder of X" article is a particularly "high standard of care"... a "Trial of Y" article on the other hand is far less contentious. -- samj _in ^out 13:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Of course I think a TIMELINE article, that deals specifically with a date-event listing, and with the chronology of a case, for easy reference and summation, (either as a separate article or in a main article) is always useful and appreciated by readers. It's not likely that there would be a timeline section in the main article, but a timeline arguably should exist, and therefore exist separately. There are plenty of timeline articles, that deal with various topics and situations. Trial cases being one of them. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you support a timeline, including one in a main article. I'm unconvinced there needs to be [yet another] separate article that deals with a timeline, particularly one this short. -- samj _in ^out 13:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The proper venue to be discussing this is Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher - where, incidentally, discussion on a proposal to create a Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito has been going on for a number of days already. Why this debate is effectively being duplicated by being brought to another talk page I have no idea. Can we try to keep discussion as centralised as is reasonably possible? Whether or not a "Trial" article should be spun out of the main article, what should go into a "Trial" article, and what (if any) pages should be moved or redirected to just such a "Trial" article are questions best answered in one place and at one time. Super Mario Man 09:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus over there is that a separate article should be created — the question is, is a separate "timeline" article justfied? I'm unconvinced, at least not until a "trials" article exceeds a sensible size. -- samj _in ^out 13:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support obviously. A murder in itself is not notable (many people are mudered every day), the trial is notable because of the amount of media attention Amanda Knox has received. Mocctur (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to save some editor time by being WP:BOLD and going ahead with the move despite there being no clear consensus here (beyond the fact that we all agree there should be a timeline). My reasoning is that the timeline will remain in the trials article and can be moved to a separate article when and if the size limit is exceeded. I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but we're talking about a few events that can fit in a section, not a complex timeline like Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents that warrants a dedicated article. -- samj _in ^out 14:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:BRD I have reverted, given the balance of views expressed above. This timeline covers the whole of the murder investigation and the trials that resulted from it, not just the trials of Knox and Sollecito. Jheald (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so the timeline of MoMK is a> she was murdered and b> Guede went to jail for it. Meanwhile the trial of Knox and Sollecito kicked off and virtually all of the timeline events relate to this. In other words, a timeline article for MoMK would certainly not be justified, and the trials timeline is sufficiently concise as to belong in a section of a trials article. We already have the MoMK & Knox articles and will soon have a trials article — do you really think we need four articles for a single event? Is it worth more editor time discussing it? Do you really think a dedicated timeline article would survive AfD? -- samj _in ^out 14:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To duplicate the answer I gave you on the other talk page: let's see whether we do have a trials article any time soon, and then whether it survives AfD as anything more than a content fork of the "Murder of ..." article; and then we'll know where we stand to review the timeline article. Meanwhile, as I wrote above, the balance of views on the timeline talk page is that it should not be redirected or repurposed. Jheald (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and echo SuperMarioMan's question above wondering why this is being duplicated rather than having this discussion all in one place. This murder has been notable on its own due to the details issued by authorities.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.