The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, and place ((deletedpage)) on both pages; vehemence of IPs is appreciated and noted, but judgment of more experience editors is accorded more weight. Babajobu 03:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villain (Knox movie) and Knox (animator)[edit]

Delete. Originally put up for PROD. Likely vanity; doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Also seems to fail crystal ball test. --Kinu 02:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Comment: The related article Knox (animator) was put up for PROD as vanity and WP:BIO failure; added here as part of this AfD since PROD is removed. --Kinu 02:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I wouldn't necessarily say it's crystal ball, though. Royboycrashfan 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. It's easy to put a release date on something that you'll be releasing. :P --Kinu 02:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Um this page actually has more info about the movie than Knox's actual site...I actually learned alot about the movie from this page, so i dont see why you should delete it. Same thing with the Knox page..Knox isnt just some nobody who makes movies that only his friends watch, he has millions of fans who know about him. I say keep them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.231.8 (talk • contribs)
  • this page actually has more info about the movie...: Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, nor is it designed to be a primary source for information. If there is more information here than on the "official" page, it effectively turns this article into both of these. --Kinu 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep! this page wasnt being used to advertise the website. Me and Marshal(Knox's close friend) added that info because there was a notice saying that there wasn't enough info on the movie. The knox page has been deleted before, but was created again. People obviously think that this page should stay. - Brady Lowery

Comment: That means this is vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship." the knox page wasnt created by me or any of knoxs freinds, all we did was edit some things and clean up the page. - Brady Lowery

You made several major edits to the article. It's still vanity even if you didn't create it. Royboycrashfan 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• im just saying that if you guys delete this, some other person will just come along and make a whole new page about this guy. Alot of online film makers have there own Wikipedia pages, so why delete Knoxs? plus he even has more fans than most of them.
• Speedy Delete — Per Brady Lowery (above) this is recreated previously deleted material. Don't know how to verify that, but I'm sure someone else here does. If it's true, it's CSD:G4
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
  • Good catch, Bill... didn't even notice that phrase in that reply. If that article does in fact get deleted again, whether by speedy or consensus means, I recommend the use of ((deletedpage)), to prevent yet another recreation, which is mentioned as highly likely in one of the other comments. --Kinu 06:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isnt a duplicate of the first Knox page, which i only saw once, and it basicly just talked about how hes a clay animator, and it didn't have much info on it, and it didnt even list his movies (when i saw it anyway), and i dont even think the first Knox page has the same title (i think it was Knox claymation or whatever). This page was most likley created by someone who didn't even know Knox had a wikipedia page before. I dont see any reason why this page should be deleted.....the "villain" page, yes...but the "Knox" page, no, I dont see anything bad about the "Knox" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs)
    • That call for inspection was actually being directed toward an admin, who can access the original deleted page itself and make an objective assessment. --Kinu 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ok cool, other than that, why is this page being conidered for deletion in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs)

81.98.65.35 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Keep this page up![reply]

• • Above user has no contributions beyond commenting on this AfD. --Kinu 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I hadnt heard of this guy before and i found the article fairly interesting. An 18 year old releasing a claymation movie that apparently grossed over $30k must be fairly notable, no? But the articles are full of unsourced rubbish, so meh. -- jeffthejiff 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice, non-notable, meatpuppetry and threats to violate policy further. --Malthusian (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I actually do know who Knox is. I've seen acouple of his movies about a year ago, but my friends at school are always qouting his new video's. So i say that this page is indeed notable. 172.145.175.36
  • Comment: Knowing who he is and quoting him are not the same as notability. --Kinu 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• so abunch of people all around the world, who dont know him personally and have NEVER talked to him, yet still knowing about his work dosn't make him notable? the guy has atleast 2 million fans, i think he deserves a article. Why wouldnt he? That "notability" thing even said something about the person needing to have atleast 5000 fans, or have sold 5000 CD's(in his case, DVD's)..the guy has sold over 6000 copies of his movie....and this is a 18 year old guy (who started when he was 15). I think that is amazing. -Brady Lowery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.203 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy delete as ((db-repost)). Stifle 11:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please clarify under what name was the article formerly created and deleted. Neither Villain (Knox movie) nor Knox (animator) have any deleted history. Also please note that speedy deletion of an article doesn't automatically make its re-creation a speedy deletion candidate (unless the new version meets speedy deletion criteria), and a re-created article after "Proposed deletion" is excluded from speedy deletion for that reason, or from nomination for ((prod)) once again. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so let me make my vote explicit. Delete, unless the claim that he had made 50,000 dollars on one of his movies is verified/referenced, in which case I'll change my vote to weak keep and cleanup. - Mike Rosoft 10:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! This guy is a major geek icon. His works ARE notable. I mean, King of the Portal? 5 times? On Newgrounds? Having the most Top 50 movies on Flashplayer? Not to mention the fact that he's put out a DVD that's made truckloads of cash? Admittedly, this article needs a bit of a tune-up, but it still should be kept! This guy is an internet VIP! But, by all means, delete the Villain page. Sincerely, 67.173.8.132 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! Knox may not be famous or important in the real world, but he is definitly internet famous. I think it is reasonable for him to have a single page about himself, his works, and how he creates them. On the otherhand I think the Villian page should go.
  • Unsigned vote by User:69.81.47.113, who has only three contributions apart from this comment, all to Knox (animator). Please note that votes from unregistered or newly registered users with very few edits may be disregarded. (See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators.) - Mike Rosoft 11:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep user: Rob Meehan 5:28pm, 7 Feb. 2006. What's the point of deleting the article, sure, it needs clean-up, but you don't to be a bitch and delete it. Knox is famous on the interent, and of all things, deserves a wikipedia page. His movies are known all over the internet. I don't think this is a "waste of space", as some of you keep bitching.
  • No such user account; vote/comment was actually made by unregistered User:65.26.121.53. - Mike Rosoft 09:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is internet famous. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Holy crap, Villain isn't just a stupid internet movie, it is a Napolean Dynamite style movie, a real movie. Knox will one day be a pro film maker (independent thoiugh). He deserves a pge and a Villain page. DELETE DUMB kLAY WORLD OTT PAGE THOUGH? HOW MADE THAT!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.154.215 (talk • contribs)
  • Anonymous user above has no significant contributions beyond commenting on this AfD and on a talk page for a related article. --Kinu 23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.