Regarding Knox (flash artist)

OK. Here's the run down. I closed this debate as 'withdrawn by nominator'. Nobody had voiced delete, and he withdrew it. I was a little unhappy about his notability myself, but I checked IMDB and he has a DVD, there's also enough of an assertion of notability for it not be a speedy delete under CSD A7. I had it in the back of my mind that I might renominate it myself at a later date but for now I closed the debate and detagged it per procedure.

"Knox (flash artist)" didn't look right to me, so I moved it to Robert Benfer, a vacant slot. Having completed the move, I checked what links here for Robert Benfer, to ensure no double redirects, and discovered an AFD. Checking the page history I found 28 deleted edits, 3 deletes, and links to 2 AFDs - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie). The latter debate covered the articles Villain (Knox movie) and Knox (animator) and is dated 13 February 2006. The plot deepens. Both of those pages are protected, which would explain why this new article was craftily posted at Knox (flash artist) instead of a more obvious name. Knox (animator) has 298 deleted edits.

For the pages to have been protected would suggest that the community was quite serious that an article should not be resubmitted. On the other hand, this current article is not exactly the same as those that were previously deleted.

As I see it, we have two options, delete this as a recreation and protect Robert Benfer and Knox (flash artist); or relist on AFD. It may (or may not) be that his notability has increased in recent times.

I'll now canvas some other admins opinions and we can make a decision. --kingboyk 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted histories bear you out. I have done the needful. Just zis Guy you know? 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the wikipedia deletion policy:
If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted.
--JoeBlowfromKokomo 17:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also often indicates obstinate refusal on the part of a few extremely zealous individuals to promote their favourite internet thing. YMMV. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment considering how many times the page "Knox (animator)" and its relatives were recreated, i dont think thats only "a few extremely zealous individuals". and that was only people who both view his movies and are wikipedians. he has more than 1 million fans in total and is among the most viewed flash artists. his works have been viewed over 14 million times, and hes made dozens and dozens of films.

I dont see why this page is going to be deleted. One reason i think u want it deleted is because it was deleted several times before, the fact that it was deleted several times before was coincedence; i am relatively new to wikipedia and i was never even aware that those pages existed when i decided to create my version of the knox page.

And i dont think that the reason is poor quality; i thought the page was pretty good, and i wasnt near being done with it. i had spent a day researching knox so that i could find as much information as possible, and again, i wasnt done with that either, so i dont think the reason you want it deleted was that the page had a lack of information.

Another reason is that you dont think Knox is signifigant enough for Wikipedia. But he is; hes one of the most important flash animators and even independant filmmakers of modern times. He certainly is as important (if not more important) than other major flash animators such as Legendary Frog (creator of Ark & Kerrigan and One ring to rule them all, most notably), Jonathan Ian Mathers (creator of neurotially yours), and The Brothers Chap (creators of Homestar Runner), and all of them have their own wiki pages. None of them have made movies, or used a revolutionary style of flash like Knox used "Klaymation".

So considering all of this, why do you want his page deleted? --JoeBlowfromKokomo 22:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just recreate it on Knox (flash artist) and be done with it? you guys who think it isnt worth having can just ignore it, because it is worth it. --JoeBlowfromKokomo 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]