Talk:Tom Knox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedy Request[edit]

Candidates to major offices have generally been given a pass. Knox is second in the polls right now and has a legitimate candidacy based on the money he has spent. I would not support a speedy but if you want to AfD it I can post references at that time.

As far as the very recent POV edit that looks right off Mr. Knox official bio, that's got to go. Montco 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name that copy and pasted the info from Knox's site, Susan Madrak is also the name of Knox's campaign manager and a Huffington Post blogger. Looks less like a copyright vio and more like a publicity page --206.125.60.59 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it it written now, it is a publicity page and I support its deletion. If it was NPOV, I would support that it stays. He does seem notable enough to stay. Aardhart 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polling I just got from Keystone and SurveyUSA put Knox in first place and show Fattah's support slipping amoung White Voters, guess John Street and Mumia Abu-Jamal aren't good backers for a campaign! So I hope someone can post up a non-plagerized article on Knox here that's not a copyvio --206.125.60.59 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Re-write[edit]

I had hoped that the admins would wait until I got home from work before speedying the article so I would have something to start with. But I think this is a reasonable start for the article. If someone has access to the polling data, its probably not a bad idea to come up with a chart.

Would appreciate a quick proofread as I am generally lousy at proofreading my own work. Montco 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Candidates for local government office are not thereby notable. Indeed, as Wikipedia:Notability (people) says: "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... the criterion right above has ..."Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." So what I don't know is exactly what you want. Clearly the mayors of the fifth largest city in the United States are notable as evidenced by articles on Wilson Goode, Ed Rendell and John Street. Tom Knox is one of the leading candidates for the job if polls are to be believed.
He is certainly notable enough to earn write ups about him (not the race in general, but about him) from:
The city's daily newspapers"[1][2][3][4]
City Opinion Columnists [5]
And the alternative weeklies[6][7]
Here's an article on him from 1992 [8]
Please note that half of these references were already in the article from my initial re-write. Others I did not include since they merely repeat information. Are you asking for lots of redundant references so that you can establish that he is notable? I can do that, but it seems a bit silly. If Knox fades and is just an also ran in the May primary, I might consider a deletion since that would make him an also-ran. But right now, his run has generated significant media coverage locally. You may not like it, but spending $15 million of your own money to win an election gets you a lot of attention.
If you are looking for something completely unreferenced go see Boles Creek Wrestling its a wrestling league started by a high school kid whose only references are a youtube link, a myspace spage and his own official page.
Montco 00:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Candidates for local government office" and "Major candidates in the mayor race for a city of 1.5 million people" are not the same thing at all. As noted by Montco, Knox has received significant press coverage in major papers. john k 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Knox is a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Aardhart 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local press coverage of a local candidadate for local office isn't really surprising, and doesn't constitute notability. As for '"Candidates for local government office" and "Major candidates in the mayor race for a city of 1.5 million people" are not the same thing at all' — well, yes, they are; "local government office" doesn't specify the size of the local government. I'd have the same reservations about an article on a candidate for Mayor of London (pop. c. twelve to fourteen million) if that was all they were known for.
Note also that the fact that Wikipedia is full of crap articles on non-notable subjects (and believe me I'm painfully aware of that) doesn't mean that notability guidelines don't count.
I still think that this person is non-notable, and that he might become notable if he won. I can't be bothered, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this was covered in great detail here --206.125.60.59 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate for city council of Philadelphia, or for the state legislature, or for some rural or suburban county executive or county commissioner position is not inherently notable. But one of the main candidates for the mayorship of the fifth largest city in the United States is a different cup of tea entirely. Are you really saying, in addition, that Tom Knox still might not be notable even if he became mayor of Philadelphia? Perhaps this has to do with a misunderstanding of the role of a big city mayor in the United States. Big city mayors in the United States are really important. They have a lot of power, and are in the local news media all the time. The Philadelphia mayoral race is the political story in the Philadelphia metro area right now, and the Philadelphia metro area is, as someone noted on the AfD page the anon links to, more populous than the Republic of Ireland. Beyond that, Wikipedia:Notability (people) clearly states that "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Knox, as a prominent candidate for mayor this year, who has received significant press coverage, is clearly notable. john k 15:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're flogging a dead horse, and at such length... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the "I can't be bothered." part of your statement. john k 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; easily done. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictutre[edit]

Anyone have a fair use picture of Knox to post off?

I emailed his Gubernatorial website and they gave me a photo to use in public domain. Rockyobody (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up[edit]

It's pretty obvious what needs doing. Aside from various problems of Wikipedia style and mark-up, it needs copy-edciting, the organisation of the material is peculiar, with (a tiny amount of) biographical material poked in at the end, no notes section, no external links section... (Montco|Montco's edit summary "i told you that if you want it cleaned up, tell us whats wrong" is not only unacceptable in itslef, but obscure; who did he tell, and where?) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am puzzled by your approach to this article. You have somehow decided to make your stand on "policy" right here. Why have you not deleted the thousands of links on virtually every candidate page but focused only on this one? I don't know what you think of me or anyone else who contributes to this page. I am not a Knox supporter, we aren't in the same party and I can't vote for or against him.

At this point, I suggest that you take this to the WP board or whomever and ask for some sort of policy clarification on candidates and links. You need to ask them to make a ruling on this issue. Otherwise, you are breaking a standing precedent which has been developed by "consensus" edits on thousands of WP articles to disrupt a page on one person.Montco 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be operating on the peculiar assumption that I read every article on Wikipedia, and pick and choose which to edit. Perhaps if, as you imply, you've read thousands of articles on political candidates, your assumption is based on your own case; it's not true of me, however.
  1. The link looked to me to be merely an advert for his campaign, and was certainly presented in a PoV way.
  2. See our naming conventions for section headings. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation request[edit]

The Business career section of this article included a request for citation to document Knox's gain of $20 million in his sale of Fidelity Insurance Group. This request was recently removed without a citation being given. If the amount of gain cannot be verified from a reliable source, that text quite simply should not be included in the article, per the verifiability policy. The citation request is being restored. —ADavidB 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tom 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tom Knox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Knox&oldid=1207802541"