Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Sweeney

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 was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Sweeney

Run of the mill pervert. There are many, unfortunately. This one was newsworthy in the UK at the time of his most recent crime, and during his trial and conviction. But his subsequent notability is not proved: the rare appearance of a common-or-garden perv seldom leads to lasting notability or future fame. If it does, Wikipedia can always come back to the subject when some sort of notability beyond his crime is assertable. ➨ ЯEDVERS 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not a news report database. Case of WP:Recentism here. Bwithh 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I guess if you're not Jeffery Dahmer or Jack the Ripper, you don't have the kind of lasting fame to be a criminal deserving a Wikipedia article. It is well cited and a not an entirely unknown case, however. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article contains information that the public would need to know. Remember, he may be out again within five years. --Generalstaben 10:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep His conviction was national news and shocked millions of people, I don't see why it should be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cola4 (talk • contribs) .

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. Article suggests regional notability. -AED 00:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Likely to remain notable, not so much because of his own crimes as because of the controversy surrounding his sentencing. Vashti 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Briefly making headlines does not confer notability and conflates an encyclopedic project with simply a compendium of new items. Are we going to chronicle every case where the prison sentence attracts attention? Eusebeus 12:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless... The case may be used as an illustration of child sexual abuse in British media and law (the child sexual abuse article is presently America-centric and sitting under a "globalize" tag). If that's done, the case may have wider relevance. As it is, it's just another news story. DanB DanD 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Someone really needs to explain to me why being a convicted rapist is more notable than being an unsigned indie band or a church pastor or a blogger. Just because the news media loves to sensationalise these kinds of stories, doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -/- Warren 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this article is notable and well structured, fair enough he hasnt earned recognition but what he did means he should have it. Ian Huntley has a page and Myra Hindley why should this person be any differant? (Neostinker 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

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.