Talk:Cheryl (singer)

You solved it!
, not sure what you meant by the link to the non-existent wp:notatabloid on your last revert. Perhaps frustration over the fact that the source referenced is not considered one of the Deprecated sources, but you think it should be? Take that up at the deprecated sources page. Also not sure why so fastidious believing that a report calling Jean-Bernard Fernandez-Versini her "ex-husband" does not mean divorced. Perhaps frustration that they did not refer to him with the entire phrase "the person who was once her husband but has since been divorced thus is now her ex-husband"? Take that up with the magazine editor who did not chastise their reporter and demand 17 words when one says the same thing.

All, of course, is now moot, because you found the golden ticket! After years wasted protecting the note "Please do not change without a citation to a reliable source published in February 2017 or later, or prior consensus on the talk page. The latter is preferred as this issue has been discussed extensively and reports from sources remain unclear", and warnings of WP:OR, you were the one who aced the search effort and found a terrific source, from 4 years ago, using all the right words to do with this issue.

All kidding aside, that's a nice catch. I searched on three separate occasions and had not found that particular reference. Too bad you had not found it 4 years earlier. Now if you could just find something to keep others from messing with the "mononymously as Cheryl" edits. Thanks for the fix. Jmg38 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
I have removed a paragraph which referred to a long 'spent' offence. Please see the rationale here (at General Principles) and here (at editing a biographical detail). Happy to discuss. Emmentalist (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Cheryl is a public figure, the incident is covered by still-online BBC and Telegraph articles which are wp:RS. This is covered by wp:BLPCRIME. Adakiko (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Adakiko BLP:CRIME does not cover cases where there has been a conviction, which is why I've raised it here. Both of your points are circular, I think. There's no question of content being removed from internet publications. The question is whether aggregators and search engines should include spent convictions in aggregations and searches. Similarly, if WP:GNG is satisfied then the subject is notable by definition. My deletion is on the basis that very old media references to minor 'spent' convictions should not be included in aggregators like Wikipedia, as is intended by law in the UK and elsewhere. Do you think you might reconsider in the light of this? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)