Talk:Jack Tweed

Notability
Can't we just edit the whole thing to Chav scum ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.224.158 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Being in BB in itself and being boyfriend of a reality TV star doesn't warrant your own Wikipedia article.--Fay06 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe suggest merging with Jade's page. Triangle e 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In a couple of weeks when Big Brother ends the article will probably look a bit longer. Plus, Big Brother Celebs usually star and guest appear in numorous shows after their time in the house comes to an end... let's just give it a bit of time.


 * Do you think you could sign your comments, please? You wouldn't want the Wikipedia community thinking you were an Endemol apparatchik working on the CBB publicity machine, would you? By the way, I vote for deletion. He's completely non-notable. Sure, he may become notable, but right now he isn't. If we gave a WP page to everyone who showed some promise of future stardom the site would be flooded with nonentities.Bedesboy 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it not already? Look at these pages, Jessica Haywood and Toby Cockerell. I suggest we keep the page, DO NOT merge it, but rename it to Jack Tweed as this is his actually name and not Tweedy. P  e  ter  will  19:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the first comment. He is only famous for being related with reality TV shows.


 * RE: Jessica Haywood and Toby Cockerell, they're notable, both actors appeared for several years in one of the most watched TV series in the UK. That level of TV exposure is not comparable to this non-entity, whose only claim to fame is being the boyfriend/hanger-on of a well-known reality show contestant. I've seen T' Weed briefly on Jade Goody's Living series and his total lack of any personality was evident long before Celebrity Big Brother, so the chance of him "starring" in any shows are as slim as him saying something intelligent in the house. 172.143.72.70 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed redirect
I have changed the redirect to point to Jade Goody rather than the CBB 2007 article per discussion held here and per WP:BOLD.  fr33k man   -s-  17:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article back again?
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)
 * Agreed. I call for a vote with regards to deleting this page.(78.86.136.146 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

This article is pointless
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Redirect, notability is not inherent through marriage. We is only notable for BB and Jade, the info is covered elsewhere. — R  2  19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect, he's had his fifteen minutes here, and I doubt he's going to do anything to establish any extra notability than that. Were it not for Jade and BB, he'd be just another non-notable minor criminal, and we wouldn't mention him at all.-- Rodhull andemu  19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect, just to add my vote down here. I would say to Goody rather than CBB 07 though. Sky83 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep article Jade Goody page is a very long piece and will get longer on everything she has done. Most materials do not involve Tweed. When readers want to know about Tweed himself and his part of the relationship, do they have to read the whole life of Jade Goody to find the few sentences they need in a nutshell about Tweed? That's all what a redirect does unfortunately werldwayd (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jade Goody's article is nowhere near "very long". It would need to double in coverage before it was considered "long" by Wiki's standards and would need to grow three fold to be considered "very long". — R  2  01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep article The fact that Tweed's fame comes from his association with Jade Goody, not through his own achievements, is irrelevant. The fact is, he is famous (nearly a million results from a google search). Fame = notability. Dubmill (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: But any percieved fame he has is entirely related to Goody and notability is not inherited. There is not a single thing he has done that has been independantly notable that hasn't been caused by the relationship or made news because of his association with the relationship. I get the whole 'fame' thing, but there is no argument for independant notability here. That could change (although I personally don't see it happening), but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sky83 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect, as speedily as possible - the existence of this article is pretty much a blatant violation of WP:BLP. As it is, I'd be tempted to nominate it for speedy deletion as an attack page - it's about as negative as you can get. Actually, I think I'll just be bold and carry out that redirect myself. Robofish (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

Release from prison
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)

Reinstate
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)
 * I would support this. His post-BB information has all be removed from his list entry. anemoneprojectors   talk  21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Then can his post-BB information be restored to the list entry? anemoneprojectors   talk  21:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)