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 194.221.133.226 (talk) at 09:18, 28 May 2008 (added my two cents). 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]

  • Keep When the movie gets released I am sure some people want to know about this guy. And also keep it as a sign against violence - the victims of unnecessary violence shouldn't be forgotten!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.238.54 (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. WWGB (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThis article is clearly referencing an event which made headlines in the UK media (in fact front page on at least one paper). Surely that warrants it as an issue which may want to be referenced in the future - and wikipedia is known to be one of the key places for getting information about events past, present and future. Celticsapien (talk) 19:21, 26 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]

*Delete Death does not make an individual notable, nor does an uncredited (as is most likely here) role in a film, albeit a major one. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 21:59, 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 Weak Keep - 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) There is now barely enough information to show he's got at least two credited parts under his belt, which barely meets WP:N. IMHO Everyone in the credited cast of Harry Potter films who is also in the credited cast of a national TV show, even for 1 episode, will probably pass AfD if their articles are ever nominated. Assuming the cited references are correct and IMDB goofed up, he's in 2 episodes of a TV series. Plus, according to references, he's in a reality TV show. Unfortunately, none of these references pre-date his death, which is why this is only a weak keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
    Comment I meant with "This article" the wikipedia article. Andjam (talk) 08:40, 27 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)
Comment. As per "not a ballot" box above, "... deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." Singatoka, you are correct; this is a debate on merit, not a voting booth. Sky (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am fully aware that this is a debate on merit. My comment to Singatoka related to editors prefacing multiple comments with the word Keep each time, a practice which Singatoka changed after my comment. WWGB (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 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) withdrawing objection to courtesy blank on grounds I thought it was a history deletion. As long as the content of this discussion is available in the history and the "blanked" version includes a link to the "real" version then I'm okay with that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:13, 27 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 confirm, I presume that the 77.xxx vote was from the above who've not logged in. Otherwise, the IP vote would have the SPA tag as it is the only the contributions.--JForget 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - because of the Harry Potter factor, and because he has been in enough notable movies and tv shows (PS, more than one) to be notable. There are lots of American idol contestants with their own article, and they are notable only if you've watched the show. This guy is notable if you're a Harry Potter fan. Keep the idols and keep this article.Bib (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to add which movies and TV shows. From the article: He is scheduled to appear as Marcus Belby in the 2008 film Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and had signed to appear in the planned film Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.[1] Knox had been acting since the age of 11, and his first credited role was a small part in an episode of the ITV police drama The Bill and he also appeared in the Channel 4 reality show "Trust me I'm a Teenager", and the BBC comedy After You've Gone. He had previously appeared as an extra in a number of productions such as the 2004 film King Arthur. He also appeared on Tonight with Trevor McDonald.[2][3] Bib (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets notability criteria due to numerous mainstream news articles and Harry Potter film connection. Sky (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notable only for a single news item. The death should be mentioned somewhere in the Half Blood Prince movie pre-production history section. Fishal (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Would likely have meet WP:BIO before his untimely death. He certainly meets it now. This is not a NOTMEMORIAL case since the individual is notable (NOTMEMORIAL is for when people add memorials for friends and family members). The fact that Knox's death is the main reason we have added an article is not terribly relevant. Like some of the more notable individuals who died in the Virginia Tech shooting, the fact that the individual was brought to our attention by this event does not mean we cannot have an article on the individual. Invocations of BLP1E also do not make sense since the individual is dead and is notable for multiple things. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep How does he not meet it? he made the front page of most nationwide papers! a joke if this is deleted. [[User:Yubious] ([[User talk:Yubious) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yubious (talk • contribs)

This template must be substituted.

  • Keep after thinking on this one, either a small part in a Harry pootter film or beiong murdered are not enough of themselves but together they combine to create notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think deleting this article on the principle that Rob Knox does not have sufficient notoriety would be premature at this point. The movie he acted in has yet to be released. My suggestion would be to leave the article up for now. Perhaps after the movie has been released this can be revisited. Nobody could possibly forsee the impact that seeing this late actor in an upcoming movie may have on his fame. JeremyT923 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of articles on ordinary murder victims, and this guy was in a Harry Potter movie so I think his notability is even more so than that of an ordinary murder victim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.185.163 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A bit annoying to see deletionists still tying up time resisting this article. Even the most backseat actors in the Harry Potter films have articles, this actor would have had one eventually, his unfortunate death just sped up the process. Hundreds of people Google this person's name to read more about him, and Wikipedia is the first place to which they're directed. This site used to be a helpful resource for things like this, now we have people scrambling to delete entries of persons on the front page of every major news website for purely technical reasons. Be pragmatic: he was already famous in Britain—keep.—DMCer™ 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prior to the tradegy the individual was likely not notable as the reliable sources on which an article could be based did not exist. The news coverage of the murder has picked up on him being in the movie in the same way that they pick up on murdered people who look after elderly relatives or play amateur football, it is the "hook" for the story. Given that the sources that are used in the article - for both his career and death - stem from one event I do not think an article on the individual is appropriate. An article on the event itself might be possible (The murder of Rob Knox) but Wikipedia is not a news service. The current coverage that the event is recieving, whilst being widespread, is that of an ongoing story, rife with speculation where most of the facts are far from certain. With this in mind I do not think that the sources currently available can provide the kind of historical perspective required to write an encyclopaedia article that meets our inclusion standards of a neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Guest9999 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really not up to you to decide that his presence in international media was just a hook to gain ratings. In fact the entire argument here is invalid until after the movie comes out because we otherwise cannot determine his importance. I don't believe he was an extra as some misinformed people have suggested and he isn't really a one event person because of participation in other programs. The fact that Rob Knox died before we could determine where his career was going also attests to the fact that he isn't a nobody. I don't honeslty see any reason for this not to be here, and since the movie isn't out we are literally incapable of determining his involvement. TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when the movie comes out if there are a lot of sources that refer to his acting performance not relating to his death then an article could be written, currently all the sources being used and available stem from the reports of his death, his acting career is currently not one of note outside that event. Guest9999 (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the combination of notability factors per Squeakbox. -- Roleplayer (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, combination of notability factors justifies inclusion, but cut back on editorializing and memorial-related material. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I just looked at the article to find out more about him, I didn't know it was going to be up for deletion. I just assumed there would be an article here. Other people must be doing the same. JRawle (Talk) 09:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From a user perspective, I was interested to learn more about Rob Knox following his recent death and media attention. This is a valid article due to his acting status and his role within the new Harry Potter movie. I see no reason why this article should be removed and those asking for its deletion should be ashamed of themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.30.108.35 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-one here needs to be "ashamed" of their contribution to Wikipedia. You may like to read the policy on civility. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think gracelessly mocking the dead is something to be ashamed of, you need to read WP:CIVIL again yourself. WP:DICK The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In defence of WWGB, I think his point was that simply arguing for deletion is not something to be ashamed of, as long at is done in a sensitive way. Some of the people arguing for deletion, such as WWGB, have done it without resorting to the grossly insensitive language that others have used. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #1 - I think this is exactly what we are debating. WP:ENTERTAINER lists one criteria for notability as Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. He has credited roles for at least 2 episodes in at least one television series and at least one role in a notable film. Taking for granted that the television series is notable, it boils down to a question of "what does featured mean?" He clearly wasn't one of the top stars in either the TV show or the movie, but it wasn't like he was an extra either. It's up to us, as editors, to decide whether these relatively minor roles in "notable productions" cross the notability threshold. As you can see, there's a difference of opinion.
  • Comment #2 - His recent death made it much easier to verify his notability. Without his death, and thanks to an appearent goofup by IMDB that split him into two entries, the proof of his notability would probalby only be in industry publications, his hometown newspaper, and other relatively obscure places. The proof was there all along, it was just wasn't obvious. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Rob Knox is still making international news four days after his death, a story went up on Canada's Globe and Mail just 50 minutes ago. Singatoka (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable at the moment. In the news worldwide and people will come here looking for information (Wikipedia comes top of a Google search even if for some it will point at a different Robert Knox with a disambig link at the top) so it should be provided. --Rumping (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep per above. Tough call though. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hes notable enough and have a pages on several other wikipedias too.--Ezzex (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Rob Knox Wikipedia article has attracted a stunning number of readers the last two days. I could not find any biography that beats the current popularity of this person, and actually no other Wikipedia article regardless of subject. According to the statistics there were 83,000 article views on a single day, on May 26, and 61,000 the day before.
Compared to a few selected articles from the top list from the "Wikipedia article traffic statistics":
  • Barack Obama: 20,600 views 26.5.2008 (adds up to 675,000 so far in May)
  • George W. Bush: 16,000 views 26.5 (adds up to 460,000 in May)
  • John McCain: 13,900 views 26.5 (adds up to 458,000 in May so far)
  • Sex: 60,000 views 26.5 (adds up to 1.4 million so far in May 2008)
  • Deaths in 2008: 43,200 views 26.5 (adds up to 968,000 in May)
  • United States: 40,000 views 26.5 (adds up to 1.13 million so far in May)
Oceanh (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Many of these were probably search engines or spam-sites loading up names they see in the news. Robert Knox got 157K on 5/26, up from a few hundred per day in April. This means 74K of those did NOT bother to find the real Rob Knox, who has been directly linked from Robert Knox since 15:00, 25 May 2008. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some must be like myself who have been following the conversation regularly and I always check the article to note changes as it is has been improved and I want to make sure I make an informed and complete opinion. Granted that won't account for a huge number of hits but it factors in. I still believe that the article does not meet notability requirements and think the high traffic is simply because it is a high profile event at the moment, but as with all events it will fade from the headlines as will the interest and it has been made clear an event in itself does not equate to notability. OneHappyHusky (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a victim of crime does not make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but in my opinion having a named, speaking part in a major movie does. Cynical (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has gained worldwide notoriety and that will increase exponentially once the movie comes out. Michaelh2001 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strongly suggest a close as no consensus. While I do not entirely agree that this subject meets notability, I have nonetheless struck my Delete vote from above, per his previous television appearances and the fact that he had signed on for the final Harry Potter movie, in addition to the one set to release this summer. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:MEMORIAL applies to those who were not the subject of mulitple secondary sources, ie someone's beloved grandpa. As this person is the subject of multiple secondary sources, the core criterion of WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY, not to mention having a role in a major film, the person passes our guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this happens all the time on wikipedia, someone you've never heard of, dies, and suddenly a wiki page appears. if you look at the recent deaths page, there's an entry about a japanese news reporter who killed himself, erm, sorry, but who is he?? the newspapers, news websites, the news, are all carrying stories saying "Potter star killed" it's misleading, he was not a star, probably no more than an extra with one or two words to say. Potter star to me is Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, etc, and when i first saw the story online, heading as above ("Potter star killed") i thought Radcliffe was dead. if we keep this page, we'd be as well making pages for all the other harry potter extras, who may also have been in other programmes/films. this page was only made because he died, that's the bottom line. if he hadn't died, we'd not be having this discussion, because the page would never have been created. (geeness) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Knox&oldid=215463512"