Talk:Rob Knox

Creation

Its very sad that he died but does he really warrant being on the Death List? I mean his wiki was only created after he died. So is being famous in death enough to warrant a wiki? brob (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have never heard of this actor, nor actually of the role he plays in the upcoming HP-movie (eventhough I recently finished reading the book). Cyanid (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that having a role in a HP movie and the terrible fact that he was murdered make him notable to Wikipedia standards. 200.207.152.195 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe having a minor role in an upcoming movie is not reason enough to keep this page. I vote yes for deletion. 84.121.137.200 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the BBC -he had a very minor role in the up-and-coming film... See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7418311.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.101.39.160 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ninemsn claim he was a "Potter Star", but who beleives them? http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=568966 Katana Geldar 11:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that a page should be removed just because this was his second role, the first being the other that was mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.62.214 (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his unfortunate death and roles to warrant a Wiki - it has been big news, getting a focus on msn, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhm91 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, in the UK news today there has been a lot of stories about this, including stories on the front page of all major newspapers, and headline news on many evening news programmes including BBC 6 o'clock news. It is true that the part he plays in HBP is relatively minor - a student who Slughorn considers for entry into the Slug Club and then rejects, but I think this article is notable enough just on the grounds of the amount of news coverage his death has received. Kidburla (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments guys. Good to see some of us are still able to debate these matters. No thanks to the mystery wikipedian (96.224.197.114) who left the following comment on my personal wiki:

ur a fuked up person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.197.114 (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

brob (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Also I think we've established that the general consensus is that this wiki is justified. However to go back to my first question; is he notable enough to be included in the Death list? brob (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is still too early to make that decision, you have to see how this whole story plays out. jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.108.77.236 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he's noteworthy enough to be included in the Death List. He's a high-profile murder victim (especially in the UK), and most notable murder victims are included. This ignores the fact that he was in the Harry Potter movie. ZedJay (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that most notable murder victims who are not otherwise notable do not have an article. They are either listed under the murderer (if known), or as a Death of Rob Knox article. I question Rob being a notable murder victim, but, even if he were.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the article should continue, obviously people are looking him up on Wikipedia and so it is helpful to have the information. Whether he was famous or not before his death, he has gained notoriety now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.77.95 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of you. This article should definitely stay for the time being. Maybe in 6 months or something if the hush has died down we could consider taking it off, but for the moment at least I support this article 100%. George.millman (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion tag should be removed ASAP

There is no need for a deletion tag here. It is irrelevant if the article was created after death, so was William Shakespear's article. The person in question had achieved some level of notoriety in life and therefore would qualify for a page regardless of death. Nonetheless, even if a persons notoriety only comes about as a result of said death they still meet all the benchmarks to have an enyclopedia entry. Examples include Chandra Levy or Laci Peterson. The deletion tag is unnecessary and disrespectful at a time when the article is at peak viewership. The article should be improved, and a picture would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richprentice (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 May 2008

Deletion tag will be removed when the AfD closes, typically no sooner than 5 days after it was started. See WP:AfD for the way the AfD process works. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A request for pictures is already at the top of this talk page. If you have any that meet Wikipedia's WP:FAIRUSE guidelines you may upload them. However, if this article is deleted the pictures will be deleted within 1 week as well. If you are fortunate enough to find pictures which are freely licensed, they will not be removed when no longer in use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I vote to keep the article. --Pinnecco (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should be removed. Since when was Wikipedia limited to major information or celebrities? I cam straight to this page frok an unrelated article on gun crime, and it was relevant and helpful, and that should be all that's necessary to justify its existance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.24.19 (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I vote keep. The connection to the Harry Potter legacy makes him a person of importance to millions of people.--Gingerwiki (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Having a recurring role as a minor character is not notable, and being murdered shouldn't add to notability, this article should be deleted, would he have an article if he wasnt murdered, frankly I don't get why getting killed should get to make someone notable. 74.249.149.129 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthday

Where did the 2nd May 1990 date come from? I have access to the full birth index on Ancestry and the only Robert Arthur Knox was registered in September '89 (in the District of Chatham, Kent). I did a little digging and eventually found his MySpace page which gives his astrological sign as Leo. This coupled with the six week maximum limit between birth and registration points strongly towards an August '89 birthday. Analog Kid (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A tribute to him on YouTube gives his birthday as 2nd May 1990. The tribute was obviously created by his friends and/or family, so maybe the Myspace page was talking about someone else with the same name? Some additional info would be helpful. George.millman (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Place of death

He was pronounced deceased at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich according to reports. So should Woolwich be down as the place of death, or are we assuming he died en-route? Analog Kid (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The common-sense route is to go with the place of death as determined by law. In cases of people presumed alive by emergency personnel, the place of death is the place they finally give up and declare him dead, in this case, the hospital. Now, if, upon arrival at the hospital, a doctor declared "he's been dead at least 10 minutes" then we can worry about that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A YOUTUBE tribute video which at the end gives 2 dates (one being May 24 2008) seems to suggest he was born on May 2 1990....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.145.156 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 May 2008

According to a witness, he died in his arms at the scene. His last words were 'Callum, I need help, I need you to help me.' George.millman (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bill

IMDB's entry on The Bill doesn't seem to have him. Could it be under a yet a different name, or possibly not credited? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDB isn't perfect, but then again, neither are newspapers. One of them probably got it wrong, or, as you suggest, he was uncredited, perhaps an extra. However, since the newspapers bothered to make note of it, leave it in. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone knew which season he appeared in, so that tv.com or one of the other services could be searched. (TV.com's search engine is questionable, at best.) If he's notable, we should document everything he appeared in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDB

How about adding an IMDB link in the 'External link' section, even though there is an IMDB link in the 'reference' section. Most of the articles about actors on wikipedia has the IMDB link in the External links, even if some information is taken from IMBD. Bib (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in the infobox. Doesn't {{infobox actor}} have an "imdb" field? Hmmm. I guess not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Race of murderer

The information on his race is readily available (he's black). I added this information and it was reverted; what the hell? When the perpetrator is of a different race, that information is extremely relevant to the murder and motive (for harassing Knox's brother). It is protocol for the police in GB to assume that any white on black crime is a hate crime until proven otherwise. Why is this information being censored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.44.88 (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Hate crime is a specific convictable offense, it's just like putting Homocide down for manslaughter. 217.159.198.60 (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

i came to the discussion page to talk about the race of the murderer being listed. is it mentioned that rob knox was white? no, it is not; it mentions that he was british, which, according to dictionary.com's definition, is not a racial distinction. why, then, is the murderer's race mentioned? was race a motivation for the murder? the article does not mention this, and neither do the sources. i think the murderer's race was thrown in purely for racist reasons, whether intentional or not, and should be deleted. it is awful that he was murdered, but throwing the blame onto some mysterious "mixed-race youth" for a murder with no apparent racial motivation only serves to denigrate "mixed-race youths" everywhere (ESPECIALLY when the victim's race is not mentioned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.131.197 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 6 March 2009

The linked articles have pictures of Knox, so his race is clear and available. It is not your job to govern the hearts and minds of readers by withholding relevant information. "Racist" motives for putting race of the murderer in the article have no relevance, as it is factual and relevant information. This is an encyclopedia, not a tool for indoctrination and "social justice". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.44.88 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 6 March 2009

Contrary to your edit on 20 February, Bishop is mixed-race, not "black," but this is not relevant to this page given that in the entire course of the trial there has been no suggestion that race was a factor in the murder. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Since his race is irrelevant as it was not found to be a factor in the trial, I'm also taking out his name, DOB and hometown. These also had nothing to do with the murder according to the trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.44.88 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've added it back. There is no court order in place to keep the name of the killer out of the public domain, so it is back in. It is just ridiculous to remove such details. If the reasoning behind that was in any way plausible, most articles on wikipedia would be anonymous. Sky83 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to add information on his race then. Knowledge is power! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.44.88 (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tread carefully. Race is a largely unnecessary detail unless the attack is racially motivated, and I don't believe there has been an allegation that this murder, as horrific as it was, had anything to do with race. I really don't think it needs to be included to be honest, and I'm not sure why it's being made into a huge issue. Sky83 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, unless anyone can give me a good reason we shouldn't include two to three words that give relevant and important info about the murderer, I will continue to add the race of the murderer. It doesn't matter if it was found to be irrelevant to the murder during the trial. If you go by this logic, we'd have to delete names, dob, hometowns, etc. from all murder information. Again, the information is relevant to the murderer, certainly more important than hometown and equally important as his age. Mortician103 (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

One word: consensus. If you don't have it - it doesn't go in. We don't take kindly to ultimatums here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACYThis isn't a vote, it's a discussion. Discuss away instead of making thinly veiled threats. "We don't take kindly"? I'm not sure I take kindly to stalkers with agendas either. Mortician103 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not part of this discussion - rather an uninvolved admin and I won't take a position. However I will revert edits in opposition to consensus on any article. Toddst1 (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a WP:SPI on Mortician103 (talk · contribs) as it is obvious to me that he/she is participating in this discussion and editing the article as 98.110.44.88 (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As well as 71.175.131.197 (talk · contribs) Toddst1 (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that toddst1 is mentally handicapped. Perhaps his administrator status should be revoked? 98.110.44.88 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

More info about murder and murderer should be added

The article does not state the motive for the murder, only that Knox was protecting his brother, then Bishop killed him. Why did Bishop attack the brother? Bishop stabbed friends that were in the bar with Knox and his brother, yet that is not mentioned. There is also very little in the article about Bishop - readers of this article want to know the facts about a high-profile murder. Why not state previous convictions, background etc? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heroic Deaths

I know a category for Heroic Deaths doesn't currently exist on Wikipedia, but shouldn't it be added, and Rob Knox added to the list? He died protecting his brother, if anyone deserves to be credited for a heroic death, he does. George.millman (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. 65.0.61.116 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

would he have an article if...

he wasn't killed, i hardly see being killed as a reason for notability, people get killed all the time, all he did was play a non notable character in a series, should we give everyone an article just because someone kills them, maybe he should just be merged into an article called the murder of rob knox, the information can just go there. 74.249.139.86 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of actors who have had lower profile careers than Knox, but they still have pages on Wikipedia. Most "Murder of..." pages are for people who have no notability beyond being a murder victim, but in Knox's case he was clearly notable previously, even though nobody had started a page for him until then. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Typing

This part needs a little adjustment I think "His friend was injured also. knives.[11][12][13] Warner Bros." Arheidis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to revert back to before that stuff was changed, because there are no citations or detailed explanations for those changes. Ardric47 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rob Knox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080526150433/http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk:80/2505_robert_knox.shtml to http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2505_robert_knox.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

COI edits

Just to make everyone aware, there has been a banned COI editor trying to “salt” this article to get an article written about a “tribute” film about the subject. The article draft was declined, deleted and the editor banned. I reverted the edits where you can see blatant “begging” that the article be created. Equine-man (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)