Talk:Jack Tweed

message: I have changed the redirect to point to Jade Goody#Jack Tweed rather than the CBB 2007 article per discussion held here and per WP:BOLD. fr33kman -s- 17:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed redirect 

message: Was a consensus reached to restore it? Because as far as I can see, he still has no independant fame and as we know, notability is not inherited according to Wiki rules.  I can understand why the article seems necessary but his 'fame' is entirely concentrated on his marriage and relationship, and that is not a reason to keep this article. Sky83 (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I call for a vote with regards to deleting this page.(78.86.136.146 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article back again? 

message: Most of the information given about him is the same as his piece on the Celebrity Big Brother 2007 article, also the stuff about the engagement and wedding is on Jade Goodys page. I don't see why he has an article, he might be in the headlines at the moment, but he will be yesterday's news shortly. I think this page should be merged into Celebrity Big Brother 2007. Reli source (talk).
:See my note above this one for my opinion. I almost completely agree with you, except I feel it should be a redirect to Jade's article instead of the CBB one. Sky83 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very arbitrary to say he will be "yesterday's news". Based on what? He has established his independent celebrity status which is only in part due to his participation in the programme. After he left the programme, he has been still in the news regardless. Merging with Celebrity Big Brother 2007 means we're saying he did nothing else after 2007. He has done quite a lot actually. Same argument about merging with Jade Goody. He is not just an accessory attachment to one Jade Goody, but a celebrity on his own. Media is not just interested in Jade Goody and this "temporary celebrity" called her husband. They consider Tweed as an equal independent celebrity of great impact. Jade Goody might be gone soon, yet Tweed will most probably stay on. Identifying him a just an "extra" to Jade Goody seems to me quite unfair. In fact, come to think of it, without Jack Tweed's insight in rekindling the relationship with her, we would never have had such a Jade Goody wedding story and media extravaganza anyway would we? werldwayd (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweed's 'fame' is inherited. He would not be famous, none of us would know his name, and he never would've taken part in CBB if it wasn't for his association with Goody. Therefore, according to Wiki rules, he is not notable enough for his own article, only a redirect to CBB or Goody. And no offence, but describing him as 'an equal independent celebrity of great impact' is laughable. He is known only as Jade Goody's husband and is famous for nothing that has not been within the relationship or caused by the relationship. The argument to keep this article because of CBB is not sufficiant because he didn't place in the competition. To address your point about the wedding, look at it this way. If Tweed had married a non-famous person, would this have made news? No. If Goody had married a non-famous person, would this have made news? Yes, because it did. It was Goody who caused the wedding to be a press frenzy. I completely understand why you think this article should stay, but under Wiki rules, it is a prime target for deletion. If this goes to a vote, and I very much hope it does, my vote is for a speedy redirect. Sky83 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Just to be clear, to keep this article, it would have to be proved that Tweed is independantly notable, not just famous. That is the threshold for inclusion. And Wikipedia doesn't keep articles because of the potential future fame of a person, so saying that he may continue to be famous after Goody's passing isn't going to help the case. This is nothing personal, I have even tried to improve this article while it is here just to make it more readable, but I really don't see any reason for it to stay. Sky83 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is pointless 

message: === Offence ===
What was the offence for which Tweed and Mattock were convicted? It could not have been common assault: the maximum sentence for that is 6 months; they were both sentenced to 18 months. Was it ABH, GBH or GBH with intent? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack 

message: What was the offence for which Tweed and Mattock were convicted? It could not have been common assault: the maximum sentence for that is 6 months; they were both sentenced to 18 months. Was it ABH, GBH or GBH with intent? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offence 

message: Is James Mattock still in prison? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mattock 

message: Tweed was released from his sentence unusually early. Was he released in January because Goody has cancer? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release from prison 

message: In view of continuing negative publicity surrounding Tweed should this redirect be restored into a full article?  Or should we wait until the outcome of his trial? PatGallacher (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this. His post-BB information has all be removed from his list entry. anemoneprojectors talk 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

text: This has been turned back into a full article, but I'm going to restore the redirect. The article as it stands is hideously negative, even more than it used to be, and is on a person of marginal notability. I just don't think this is acceptable as a WP:BLP. If he is convicted after his current trial, a separate article may be justifiable, but in my view if he is acquitted it absolutely would not be. Robofish (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then can his post-BB information be restored to the list entry? anemoneprojectors talk 21:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: He was acquitted of rape. Either he should have his own article, or the post-BB info should be included on the CBB article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstate