Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Knox

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncondee (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 26 May 2008 (→Rob Knox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rob Knox

Rob Knox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

British actor with only one role, a minor part in a major movie, who was recently killed. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As far as I can tell, the article was created after his death, with no real evidence of notability before his death. My {{PROD}} was deleted by an anon without comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThis artical should be kept as when the new harry potter film comes out he will be famous its also sad that he has just dies so it would be extreamly disrespectfull to delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.68.18 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 81.156.68.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As he Just Died, Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Plus he only has one role so hes not really popular. Also i read the article and someone copyvio the article with a section from the article. As per Note, I like this Article Deleted.--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The kid would have become famous, may still become famous due to the upcoming movie and is certainly famous now due to the news coverage, which serves as verifiable sources. There is absolutely no reason to delete this, it would be silly and disrespectful.--Ncondee (Ncondee) 12:26, 26 May 2008 (EST)
  • Speedy Delete I agree with all above. I notice many seem to think that dying is grounds to be suddenly famous when it is indeed something EVERYONE does at some point. The story is tragic and the bravery of the young man commendable, but still not enough to warrant an article. OneHappyHusky (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I'm sorry that he's passed away, but we've been inundated lately with articles about glorified extras who are being presented as actors. These people are not notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets verifiability standards for having been mentioned in multiple news sources, and is not a WP:BIO1E event because of his acting career. He's in the next Harry Potter film, for fuck's sake. This is not just an ordinary murder. A short but more than rudimentary article could be written using the existing sources without original research, so I see no real reason why this should be deleted. Also, this doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria as importance through being an actor wouldn't make it an A7.--81.151.167.179 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 81.151.167.179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . WWGB (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't nominate it for speedy, as the fact that his role is not major is not immediately obvious. But we don't even have an article for the character in Wikipedia; it's a pointer to a subsection on a group formed by a minor Hogwarts teacher. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, we don't know he's in the film. It's still in post-production, and he could be cut. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's in the film, just see Imdb.com about the movie --80.203.70.235 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply being in a Harry Potter film is not evidence of notability. There are many actors and actresses who have appeared in the series (sometimes in multiple films) who lack their own pages. Take Eleanor Columbus, who has not only been in two of the films, but has appeared in several other movies - see her IMDb page - plus has a famous father. If she is not considered notable, then there's no way that Robert Knox can be. --Tailkinker (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An actor with only one bit part under his belt (in an as-yet unreleased film) is simply not notable. His death, while tragic, is equally not of sufficient note to warrant a page, and is only receiving this level of coverage because of the very minor link to the Potter franchise. As stated by others, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ENTERTAINER have to be applied here. --Tailkinker (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is in numerous news sources, and is playing in the latest Harry Potter film. A speedy deletion only sounds like misuse of power to me. --80.203.70.235 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the fact numerous news sources are reporting death. I am not sure how that matters, no one is disputing it is newsworthy, however, that still does not mean he meets notability standards. Further, I think it should be noted that even these numerous articles refer to the his role in Harry Potter being minor. "Rob Knox, who had a small part in the next Harry Potter film..." BBC News -- "...was to appear in a small part in the new Harry Potter film" Times Online -- "A teenage actor who had a small role in the next Harry Potter film" CBBC Newsround, just to name a few. OneHappyHusky (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete He came close to notability and probably would ultimatly have hit the mark, but his death has prevented that. He's a long way from being a speedy candidate, though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A minor role, as noted by a majority of the stories that I've ready about the subject today, does not necessarily make this individual notable, per policy. If someone can cite any other films or theater productions in which he appeared in a more significant role, then I might be willing to consider changing my vote. As far as I've been able to research to this point, his death is the only thing - outside of that minor role in the next HP film - that has brought him even close to the notability threshold. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 00:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The attention is due to the association with the Potter franchise rather than any notability on his part; I think it's not much different than if a crew member were to die during the production of one of the films - there would be a news report, but the crew member wouldn't merit an article. Mentioning Knox's death in the article for the film would be an appropriate solution, IMO. MisfitToys (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sadly, young man was killed but he isn't notable person. Wikipedia is not memorial. --Paukrus (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he existed and had a role in a major movie. Monobi (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If not for his death, no one would even know who he was and the article would not have been created in the first place. His roles thus far have not been noteworthy enough no matter the popularity of the films themselves (there are hundreds of other people in any given movie called "extras" that never receive any credit. Just being in the movie is not enough for an article to be created for each of them). Therefore, since WP is Not a memorial, that alone is not reason for the article's existence. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 02:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments by Dekkappai--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proxy User (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettable delete - unless of course someone can show more than this single minor part in a major movie in his filmography OR show other reasons he is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I have already weighed in as a Speedy Delete, but I have two more points to make. First, I wanted this article to work, if you look at history you will see I contributed to the expansion of it. To do so I did an internet search and unfortunately found NOTHING about this young man but his death, nothing in archives prior to his death and IMDb lists ONLY the Harry Potter role. His own hometown newspaper did not mention his role in Harry Potter until he died. Sadly, this brave young man is notable only for how he died. Second, his heroic death. Many people die protecting loved ones, people with histories far more notable than "minor/small" parts in a big movie. There is a local police officer who was killed in the line of duty in 2006, protecting fellow officers from a deranged gun man. This man was formerly a prosecuting attorney who was involved in several locally high profile cases, left that job to be a police man in his crime ridden hometown hoping to make it a better place. He was a civic leader and helped to formulate the national (in the United States) "Weed and Seed" program, "a community-based strategy sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), an innovative, comprehensive multiagency approach to law enforcement, crime prevention, and community revitalization". Steve Cox has no Wiki article because he does not meet notability requirements. Certainly he is more notable than an 18 year old with four lines in a big movie who died protecting his brother in a bar fight. Notability standards exist, whether all approve or not and this young man simply does not meet them. OneHappyHusky (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets notability requirements.--Bedford Pray 06:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct to either List of Harry Potter cast members or Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film), per above. His death can be mentioned in the HBP article (as I already did), but a very minor role in one film and The Bill does not qualify much notability. Gran2 07:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article sounds more suited to Wikinews to Wikipedia, but the article says he also appeared in multiple tv shows - Tonight With Trevor McDonald, The Bill (which is broadcast in over 55 countries), and other tv shows. Andjam (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It's an article in the News of the World, which is hardly what you'd call a bastion of journalistic integrity. The IMDb, which is generally quite comprehensive, only mentions his minor role in the upcoming Potter film, which makes his suggested appearances in many other shows at best as an extra, which is not notable, and at worst completely wrong. --Tailkinker (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable before death, even less notable now. Lugnuts (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is incorrect to state that he only had one acting role, in addition to Harry Potter he has appeared on TV in the Bill, and has been interviewerd in the press, regarding the fact that he was the victim of bullying. His death has been front page news for the last 24 hours, and is one of a growing number of Knife crimes, it is an important news story. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singatoka (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I can understand the issues here - but in all honesty the movie has cultural significance, and as the movie that he's in is due to be released soon, I'd suggest it is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai o sunshine (talk • contribs) 09:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't post a link for some reason, but if anyone wants to read the news story about this murder on the Daily Mail website will find confirmation of Rob Knox's prior TV role in "The Bill". (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singatoka (talk • contribs)
Comment. How many times are you planning to vote Singatoka? WWGB (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I apologise, I was not aware that it was a "vote" rather than a debate on merit. Singatoka (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singatoka (talk • contribs)

— 86.160.161.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . WWGB (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mjh is the signature. It‘s a german wikipedia account. --81.217.35.79 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actor/character in a major movie. Also was on The Bill. The fact his death made international news, speeks of his notability. Epson291 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actor/character in a major movie. --Vlad|-> 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Other language wikipedias have this as well. Chantessy (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His murder has been the subject of national news headlines in the UK. (A. Carty (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per Qworty. The German article on him is also up for deletion. Reywas92Talk 19:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it necessary to delete this article right now? What if a friend or relative discovers this discussion, and sees Rob being dismissed as "non-notable before death, and even less notable now" (whatever that means)? We should show some compassion, instead of kowtowing to the pantheon of acronyms. In a few months, when the story has died down, we can discuss what to do with the article in a calm and professional manner. But at the moment, let's just let it be. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have already voted, but wanted to add that according to the News of the world Rob Knox also appeared in the Channel 4 show "Trust me I'm a teenager" and have printed a picture of him in it. This story has made the news in Australia, Germany, the USA, Canada and India, so they think he matters. If Wikipedia can find space for Lady Victoria Hervey, they can find space for a budding actor with at least four separate roles to his name, and who's murder made the news accross the world.Singatoka (UTC)
  • Comment Is it necessary to delete this article right now? What if a friend or relative discovers this discussion, and sees Rob being dismissed as "non-notable before death, and even less notable now" (whatever that means)? We should show some compassion, instead of kowtowing to the pantheon of acronyms. In a few months, when the story has died down, we can discuss what to do with the article in a calm and professional manner. But at the moment, let's just let it be. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I totally understand your thoughts on loved ones reading debates and even agree on a personal level, I must add that I also believe such things can't be a part of the Wiki process. This is an internet encyclopedia and must remain as unbiased as an open contribution database can be. Sadly, that means that such arguments probably cannot be considered. Not only does it cast a shadow on the attempt to remain unbiased in this case but it is a slippery slope to all articles because it opens debate to what constitutes what a family should read or not read? Does that then not bias everything? However, in closing, I find your thoughts commendable and it is obvious you are a good person with a good heart, I just don't think we can consider the family in a debate such as this. I think the article has been vastly improved since I voted to delete, however, I think it is still not meeting the true notability standards of this site and setting emotions aside that is what we are arguing here. OneHappyHusky (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think people could be a little more tactful. Look at Qworty's comment: "Just because this guy was in the news does not make him notable. Just because he had a small part in one film does not make him notable. And, given the fact that he's tragically passed away,it's highly doubtful that he'll ever be doing anything in the future in order to meet WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V, WP:ENTERTAINER, etc. etc." He's really piling it on, dont you agree? Are the italic words and all those links really necessary? (Heck, two of those links lead to the same page.) Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and courtesy blank this discussion. It's pretty obvious from the discussion so far that this won't result in a consensus to delete, so for the reasons given by Awbizkomeydownstar this should be closed now as "no consensus" and the discussion blanked so that the grossly insensitive remarks made by some editors above will not be found by a web search for this unfortunate young man. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not courtesy blank: The outcome of this discussion will be useful to similar articles in the future as well as the inevitable future AfD. The time to be considerate of others feelings is before you post. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's pretty obvious that the only arguments presented are in favor of deletion. If nothing significant happens, and the closing admin rules otherwise, I think DRV is in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet any of the requisite notability requirements. I doubt anyone was aware he was in the film (or even an actor) until the article on his death was published, and a minor character in a film is certainly not notable. MSJapan (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article gets deleted, it should at least be redirected to List of Harry Potter cast members so at least to indicate what character he is playing as it is shown on that table. The article also has a note on his stabbing death, so a redirect would be justified.--JForget 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has only got media coverage due to his role and had he not died I doubt his bit-part would have earned him an article in life. WP:V it may satisfy but not WP:N by a longshot. treelo talk 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some how I doubt this deletion case would have been brought forward without his death. The fact that this actor has died has got the attention of international media and is therefore easy to be sourced. Wikipedia's stance is generally that if it has reliable sources that it can be kept as an article. The question that must be asked is does it harm Wikipedia by being here? The answer is no because looking at a well sourced article doesn't make others think less of the quality of the website, this isn't pointless original research about Dragonball Z or something. It has garnered the medias attention and the average surfer will not think less of Wikipedia for having it. TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article clearly wouldn't have been created without his death. ((Insert explitive here)), we (Wikipedia) don't even have an article on the character this person plays, or on the group the character belong to, or on the sponsor/creator of the group. He is listed under Hogwarts staff#Horace Slughorn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Robert Knox was listed on the Wiki Recent Deaths page in red (meaning no article) for more than six hours before one was written. Clearly, he was not notable prior to his tragic passing. OneHappyHusky (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE is one of the many guidelines that this article's proponents should memorize. Pay special attention to this key concept: merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Then scroll down to item #5, regarding news reports, which is all this article has ever been. Yes, Rob Knox existed. Yes, he no longer exists. Yes, his death was tragic. Yes, Harry Potter films exist. Yes, there are citations to verify all of this. We have these debates on AfD all the time--eventually, somebody will point out that non-notable Person X was mentioned once in the New York Times. Well, guess again, because that in itself doesn't mean anything in terms of notability. There are millions of people who've been mentioned in the New York Times. Obviously, we're not going to have articles about all of them. A guy who is known for a minuscule role in a movie and for dying is simply not notable per WP policies, and to include him here would be an indiscriminate thing to do, in fact a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as well as WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Finally, it should be pointed out to all of the meats who've shown up for this one that this process is not democratic and that we are not "counting votes" here. Qworty (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But keep in mind this isn't a mere mention in the media, I've seen this from multiple international news channels, this is no pacing comment. A lot of people tend to turn to Wikipedia for more information when they things like this, don't restrict this information because you personally don't think it's important. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting as Awbizkomeydownstar points out. He makes the Pakistani news, Cypriot news (Britsih feeds sent to those countries on-web readers), Australian, New Zealand, United States small town news papers, French and British papers, yet some Wikipedians are busy using a "debate" of noteworthyness to disparage a brutally murdered young man. Disturbing. --Blechnic (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is listed in some uncounted news sources. How does it meet any of the Wiki requirements for actor notability (which is the issue here)?? Since many of you have obviously not read them let me cut and paste:

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

    • Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
    • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
    • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

I am sorry but per guidelines this simply does not make the cut OneHappyHusky (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is an argument often used in AfDs on Wikipedia. Pick one thing the person is, then argue the person fails to meet that single category requirement. Now he's a movie actor/murder victim. Don't artificially confine him for a reason that isn't why he made the news, it's false. --Blechnic (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Why did he make the news? OneHappyHusky (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I love trick questions. I point out he made the news because he's an actor/murder victim, and you ask why he made the news, and I answer .... No, I think I'll hit the sack instead. Here, here's another one: he made the news because he's an acto with a bit part in a famous movie who was brutally murdered at a young age. Now, you ask me why he made the news.... --Blechnic (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, I admit that was something of a set up, though not meant to be a trick. Now I ask, and how does that make him notable to the pre-established and published standards of Wikipedia? OneHappyHusky (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, the advantages of cyberspace: rigidity and cutting down the forest for the trees. I keep missing things. This has been entertaining, but you've already decided, so there is no discussion. --Blechnic (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thanks for copying the WP:BIO requirements for actors etc. Did he have any significant roles or was he featured multiple times in those types of performances? No. Did he have a large fan base or significant cult following? No. Did he make special contributions to a field of entertainment? No. Therefore, he fails these criteria; if he's notable, it must be for something other than being an actor. Yes, he was killed, and his death made him prominent, but it's been long established that a well-publicised death doesn't automatically make someone notable: see Emily J. Hilscher for an example. Since his acting and his death don't make him notable, what does? Unless evidence of his being notable in some other way is provided, I can't see how he could possibly be notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Blechnic I shrug and apologize. I thought this was an open debate about the subject of one specific person meeting notability requirements of Wikipedia. I respect those standards, but if you reread anything I said above you will see I am not blind to the human factor here, simply that with an encyclopedia with clear guidelines that have been a matter of record for a long time I see no clear justification that warrants this situation to be special. If you have issues with the standards I suggest you address them elsewhere for they simply do not apply here. Having said that, I do apologize if I have offended you. I meant no disrespect at all and understand we are of a different opinion and only meant to prove my "made up mind" was based on the facts and guidelines and not the emotions of this tragedy. OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't discussed the emotional issue in the context of inclusion, only in the contexts of this discussion. You are not apologizing if you do not recognize any wrongdoing on your part--that's what an apology is: an admission of wrong. The community standards are subject to interpretation and use as head bashing instruments so I can't really go there.... --Blechnic (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am NOT sorry for my opinions, I thought I made that clear. BUT that does not mean I find joy in offending anyone for any reason...that would be WRONG. I stand by my opinions on this situation AND my apology if you found what I have said offensive. You don't have to agree with my stance and I don't have to pretend that opposing opinions don't matter. But this is off topic, if you wish to discuss this further I welcome you to address this on my talk page. OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You were certainly free to post this on my talk page, but you didn't. I'll take that as an indicator of what would have happened had I did as you say not as you do. --Blechnic (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now; might i add it is curious how people have nothing better to do... (cough, cough, onehappyhusky...) 96.251.17.183 (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 96.251.17.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When his death was first mentioned he was talked of as an extra in the Harry Potter film. One appearance on Tonight and The Bill does not a notable person make, tragic and reprehensible as his death is he is only on here because of it. (212.74.97.211 (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Redirect (as per specter's suggestion) to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). Seems to make the most sense -- the death is noteworthy, but he died before becoming a noteworthy actor. And, first thing I did when I read the news, was check wikipedia on him, so having nothing on him anywhere seems wrong. (that does not warrant his own page, nevertheless) Hugo, 158.64.77.158 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 158.64.77.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to AfD closer. If the result is other than delete or redirect, please restore the {{notability}} tag. There have been some complaints that the tag is "piling on". Fine, I can respect that, although I don't agree. But if the article is kept without the tag, that would be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are far less notable people wih much smaller articles. (Neostinker (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Role in a major major film, and his untimely death clinches it. This was front-page news for days. 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Knox&oldid=215076802"