This article was nominated for deletion on 6 February 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on August 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
Many sources describe him as a "paedophile".[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Do we have any sources which dispute that description? -Will Beback · † · 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show me that he is a pedophile in the terms that wikipedia puts it in. Then show me that his attraction to children is the most prominent feature of his public figure, and should be used to define him. For the time being, this is going right beck to the legal definition that your 'sources' are misinterpreting. --Jim Burton 18:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. It is not our job to make deductions or decide who belongs in which definitions. I don't care whether he's a pedophile or a gerontophile, I only know that he is widely called a pedophile so that is what we'll call him. I can't prove anything about him, all I can do is summarize what's been reported. Please don't remove sourced information. -Will Beback · † · 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly the resources that you supposedly googled with [sweeney + paedophile] are not reliable, according to wikipedia's article on the subject! If we were to use the ad pop method that you are promoting, the pedophilia and pedophile activism articles would become hellholes of casual, insulting and ignorant mischaracterisations and POVisms.
Of course you can prove something about him - he's a child rapist. The one thing that you can not prove is that he is a pedophile, and then have the audacity to link that word to a page that is statistically highly unlikely to describe him. I will leave the priority with the longstanding edit, but it is going right back, unless we can get a better reasoning than argumentum ad populum --Jim Burton 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No, I just googled "Craig Sweeney". There are few citations about him which don't call him a "paedophile". I can't prove that he's a paedophile or even that he's Welsh. I can only report what has been written about him. -Will Beback · † · 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't call him a paedophile then. Call him by his crime - his conviction. This is a crime article about a criminal, not a 'go along with tabloid consensus' article.
If your position is to only report the consensus on what has been written about the subjects of articles, what does this spell for other articles of largely undocumented and denied fact such as [pedophilia] and [pedophile activism]? Of course, these would have to be changed, with the primary definitions of 'rapist' 'sick' and 'pervert' promoted, as to be consistent with articles like this. I am still hearing no justification for making this claim at the level of encyclopedia. --Jim Burton 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand we have seven reliable sources, including the leading newspapers in the U.K., calling him a paedophile. On the other hand we have your assertion that he isn't a pedophile. In this case I think that the article should go with the sourced facts. If you have any sourced facts that you'd like to present please do so. But personal opinions don't count for much. -Will Beback · † · 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can all agree that the BBC et al are reliable sources regarding convictions and objective personal facts such as ages, etc (even though I have had to put them right on some occasions). This does not mean that they are reliable sources regarding the diagnosis of mental condition and the type of conviction. In fact, according to the primary definitions in this very encyclopedia, these sources are hugely unreliable in their constant use of the term 'convicted p(a)edophile'. We should therefore use our logical extension or further description within the sources themselves to find the crime, and simply not trust them to accurately attribute mental states, when they have no authoratative source themselves to back it up.
Either that, or we have an encyclopedia in ad populum casual consensus, across the board --Jim Burton 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the year of birth in the article to c. 1982 from c. 1981, because this article, published on 19 December 2006, described him as 24. By my reckoning, that gives him an 11/365 chance of being born in 1981 and 354/365 in 1982. Assuming, of course, that the article meant '24 now', not '24 at the time he committed the offence'. JulesH 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
