Talk:Michael Le Vell

Trivia
The trivia information that keeps being added, needs to have sources or it will be removed as vandalism. Please discuss the information here before readding it. This information is questionable, please read WP:BLP. Jons63 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse allegation
The abuse allegation does NOT belong in this article - whilst it is only alleged, it's not appropriate to include it in an encyclopedia, as we are not a newspaper. If there is a conviction, by all means it can be included. But right now it's not notable. AD 17:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No one seems to have noticed that ref 2 leads to an article about the arrest and since the page is protected it will need an admin to remove it.


 * Of course it's notable. He is a notable person and he has been arrested. That's a fact, and will remain a fact, no matter the outcome of the case. For example, we note the arrest of Rebekah Brooks (Rebekah_Brooks). There is nothing wrong with doing so. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, and his arrest is a verifiable fact. Harry the Dog WOOF  08:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He is a notable person but the incident is just a newspaper story. We don't document every thing that happens, especially allegations of this nature. This is nowhere near comparable to Rebekah Brooks. Just because it is factual does not mean it requires inclusion. AD 10:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A notable person being arrested is de facto notable. We are talking about the arrest here, not the allegations. Another example is Hugh Grant's arrests (Hugh_Grant). Whatever the outcome of the case, I would expect it to be mentioned. Not to mention it smacks of whitewashing. We are not saying he is guilty or innocent simply by mentioning the arrest, and there is no reason not to include that fact at this stage. It is not against any Wikipedia policy. In fact, the balance is for inclusion, not against it, if it has verifiable sources. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hugh Grant is a good example, if similar massive impact on the long term historic record is demonstrable by the sort of variety of reliable sources that discussed Grant's arrest can be added here there can be no argument against it being relevant to add. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hugh Grant is a major international film star, well-known all over the world. Le Vell is an actor in a British soap. Massive difference. AD 11:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Notability is not relative. Someone is either notable or they are not. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's re-frame my comment then rather than discussing notability of other people. Using a simple GNews search or Yahoo search shows plenty of reliable quality sources such as the BBC, The Telegraph and The Guardian covering the story (in detail, not just tangentially), so this is not just tabloid gossip in terms of public impact. Le Vell is a core actor for Coronation Street (appearing in over 900 episodes), which itself is notable for being the longest running TV soap series ever. Including the item is not a breach against WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE as the arrest will stay a highly notable event for this actor and his career regardless of whether there is any later prosecution. I would agree that there is little detail about the item and you may argue that including a long section might fail the rationale of WP:RECENTISM, however I see nothing incorrect with a brief inclusion at this point and excluding it altogether starts to look like a WP:NOTCENSORED problem. --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this major news story has not been included! Do you work for ITV Aikendrum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.135.186 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to unprotect the page - but I've made a request at the BLP noticeboard for some more people to look into the issue. I have no personal opinion on whether or not it should be included, but please tread lightly due to the serious nature of the charges. Alexius  Horatius  15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm responding to Alexius's request at WP:BLPN. I've read the sources about Le Vell's arrest, and at this point I'm against inclusion of the material because it's too sketchy. As I understand it, a female filed a complaint on September 29 via video to the police. The next day, the police arrested Le Vell, questioned him at the station for 8 hours, and then released him on bail until November 16. The only condition was that he not approach the female. Le Vell has denied the accusations. That's it. We don't know any more than that. Although the woman was supposed to have been 6 at the time, I found nothing in the sources I read (I stuck to the less sensationalistic ones) about when this was supposed to have happened, let alone any other circumstances surrounding the complaint. They keep calling it an "historic offence", which I assume means it happened some time ago. I would wait for further developments before thinking about including these kinds of bare allegations, even though it was followed by an arrest.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, the article should wait and see on this. IF he is formally charged and the whole thing does not fizzle out, it should be mentioned. Until then it fails WP:BLP.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I have said, we need to separate the allegation (which may or may not be true) from the verifiable fact that he has been arrested. To include in the article that well-sourced verifiable fact (as we have done in countless other articles) in no way fails WP:BLP. He has been arrested. Whatever the outcome, that is and will remain a fact, and to omit opens us to charges of violating WP:NOTCENSORED. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * After what happened with Matthew Kelly in 2003, Granada Television seems to be cautious. Crucially, Le Vell has not been suspended from his job, as Kelly was. The police had little choice but to arrest Le Vell to ensure compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but this does not necessarily mean that charges will follow. Thankfully, the tabloids have avoided the libellous fiasco that followed the Death of Joanna Yeates, but it is still too early to say how the Le Vell situation will develop. In view of the serious nature of the allegation, my view is not to mention it unless charges are brought. However, I would not remove a brief mention based on BBC or Guardian coverage. The problem is WP:RECENTISM, because this is not as yet a major BLP issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As a suitable brief mention with a footnote to the BBC article, how about - "On 30 September 2011, Le Vell was arrested on suspicion of a sexual offence and released on bail until 16 November, pending inquiries."? --Fæ (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, something like this would be OK. It is worth noting that the Death of Joanna Yeates led to a proposal that the UK media would be unable to name suspects who had not been charged, following a number of cases where the tabloids went way over the top. Since the BBC and Guardian are reliable sources, it is possible to mention the arrest briefly.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleared
The People says today that the Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to press charges. Although not the firmest of sources, this looks OK.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because he wasn't charged, I have removed the material entirely. See WP:CRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not strictly what WP:CRIME says. The allegation did pick up a good deal of coverage beyond the usual tabloids (eg BBC here). The allegations in 2003 against Matthew Kelly led to his temporary suspension from ITV, and these are rightly mentioned in his article. Had it not been for someone probably leaking the allegations against Le Vell to a tabloid newspaper, the whole thing might never have happened.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote from WP:CRIME: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article), when no conviction is yet secured." (emphasis added by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Serious consideration is not the same as guaranteed removal. The Matthew Kelly material is justified, but the Michael Le Vell material is more of a grey area. I'm in no hurry to mention this, but nor was there a need for a hurry to remove it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The material didn't belong even before he was "cleared".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a long debate about this, see above. The BBC and the Guardian covered this allegation, so it was not run of the mill tabloid junk. The real problem is how notable it will seem in six or twelve months' time.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires that all events that have received significant media coverage in reliable secondary sources should be mentioned. There is no real problem with this, please don't edit war. Coverage is in The Guardian, Manchester Evening News, Sky News etc. This easily meets BLP in terms of notability and coverage.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires that all events that have received significant media coverage in reliable secondary sources should be mentioned - I've been away, when did this get added to the policy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is now a WP:WELLKNOWN incident. Regardless of the truth of the allegation, it has received enough coverage to be mentioned. Not mentioning it would look odd, and it is doing a disservice to Le Vell not to point out that he was cleared.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Le Vell is a public enough figure for WP:WELLKNOWN to apply - usually used for very public figures like politicians as justification for including scandals, etc. BTW, I opened up a topic on WP:BLPN, in case you wish to contribute.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, WP:CRIME says it is the victim being WP:WELLKNOWN that merits inclusion, not the alleged perpetrator. Yworo (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing this from the article is a poor decision. It is too cautious and ignores what the reliable sources in the UK reported.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There may be legitimate reasons for not including this content since no charges were filed, but WP:CRIME does not sanction the removal of the content; WP:CRIME it is only relevant to article creation or deletion, so WP:CRIME can only be invoked if you nominate the article for deletion. Article notability criteria has no bearing on the inclusion of content, in an article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, WP:CRIME addresses the issue of notability, ie whether there should be an article on someone, simply because of their involvement with a crime. This is clearly not the issue here -- Le Vell is notable for completely separate reasons, namely his acting career.  Notability guidelines "do not directly limit the content of an article or list".  WP:DUE would be the operative policy here, and I think that a sentence along the lines of the Le Vell was arrested and bailed on suspicion of a sexual offence in September 2011, which he strenuously denied: he was cleared in January 2012 when the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge him gives it "a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject".  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of you appear to have read all the way to the end of WP:CRIME: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article), when no conviction is yet secured." Yworo (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And suspiciously, that line was added in the last week and without any discussion about it: . Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Serious consideration is being given -- here and at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to the question of what to include. The material that Yworo removed (before obtaining consensus here) did not suggest that he had committed any crime: it stated that he had been cleared.  As to the question of creating the article, that ship has already sailed: the article was created, for completely different reasons, nearly seven years ago, long before these allegations emerged.  So the notability guideline at WP:CRIME is irrelevant.  Oh, and we don't speculate on what other editors have or haven't read: such comments do not advance the argument in any way.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but saying that someone is under suspicion and then is not charged because of insufficient evidence is hardly more favorable to the subject than not mentioning anything at all. The only point anyone has made in favor of inclusion that has any real value (in my view) is Betty's about the change to WP:CRIME. I was aware it had been changed, but I didn't know it was recent or without discussion (haven't checked to make sure it was without discussion).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note that, following a quite lengthy discussion with a lawyer about this, I yesterday reworded both of the sentences concerned so that, amongst other changes, they no longer include the mention of "because of insufficient evidence" or however it was phrased. This is a separate issue from whether the allegation and arrest should be mentioned at all, of course (I take the view that it shouldn't be). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Assuming that is indeed what the CPS said and it is reliably sourced, that is.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why make assumptions? This is a BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We are discussing your conversation with a lawyer. On what grounds were you advised to remove the mention of "because of insufficient evidence" given that BBC News website, assumed to be a reliable source, stated "Police confirmed that after their investigation lawyers decided there was not enough evidence to charge him" and "the Crown Prosecution Service, who decided there was insufficient evidence to charge"?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Le Vell was accused of a child sex offence. There is no need to beat about the bush here, as it is explicitly stated in the BBC, Guardian and other sources. The media coverage was set off by a more detailed allegation in The Sun on 7 October 2011, but this fails WP:BLP.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
It's not clear to me, either from this discussion or the one at BLPN, that there is a consensus for retaining the sentence about the accusations. Therefore, I suggest we decide here. You have three choices: Support inclusion; Oppose inclusion; or Comment. "Inclusion" means retaining the material about the sexual offence accusation and its aftermath. "Comment" is if you want to suggest something different.


 * Oppose inclusion. In general, we should not be including accusations of crimes in BLP articles if they never progress beyond that point. There has to be a strong overriding justification for doing so, and the mere fact the accusations are reported in reliable sources is insufficient. In some cases - like very public figures, usually politicians - WP:WELLKNOWN might be a valid reason for including material. A good example of that is the controversy that surrounded Herman Cain. Here, we have an actor who is not even particularly famous, not a politician running for president of the United States. As another editor pointed out, there is very little material in this biography, and even a few sentences about these allegations are too much.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as this meets WP:WELLKNOWN. It is not the job of individual Wikipedians to edit out BBC etc coverage that they do not like for whatever reason. Also, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion Like it or not, this is a significant event in this person's life, reported in several reliable sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't support its inclusion -- no evidence - no charges - unnamed accuser - actually consensus is weighted towards removal - no charges, no evidence - unnamed accuser - I removed it. Youreallycan (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This should not have been removed. There is a need for further input from uninvolved editors. There is no consensus either way at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We may need further input from editors, but I don't know what you mean by "uninvolved editors" in this context. There are other editors on this page who have voiced a possible (I can't speak for them) !vote not to include the material (Betty and Demiurge), but they have yet to participate in this subsection. In addition, why should the material remain pending a consensus? Generally, this kind of negative BLP material is left out unless there is a consensus to include it, not the other way around.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been a puzzle to me right from the start. As a UK resident, it is clear that this has been a major news story covered by all the reliable sources. The wording that was removed from the article was heavily toned down to avoid tabloid excesses, and is within BLP.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included - the is a good point in WP:WELLKNOWN - This was covered in many publications - BBC, Guardian, Times included. It wasn't minor, it was big news in the UK. It wasn't just in the tabloids, the broadsheets covered it. It was not just one report, it esculated and recieved subsequent coverage. It just needs wording correctly. I just think some would prefer if would censored this out all together. There was question about the weight it was given - So I added some more information - then in typical form - another reason for removal is put to the forefront. Rain  the 1  19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ian, I've participated in many of these discussions. Simply put, there are some editors who believe as long as the material is reported in reliable sources, it should be included, and there are others who believe it is inappropriate to report criminal allegations about a living person if that person has not been at least charged with a crime. Obviously, the precise circumstances for each case vary, but, generally, the discussions are similar (the contributing editors are often different). As an aside to Rainthone, attributing censorship motives to editors who believe the material should not be included is disrespectful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A concensus is required to add or keep such material in a BLP. Such consensus clearly does not exist at the present time. That's it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not participated in many of these discussions but I sure know what the usual outcome is. Rain  the 1  21:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could someone quote the exact words of a policy that requires a consensus to add or keep such material please? Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What will probably happen if editors keep reverting (either direction) is an admin will lock the page. As for your question, the closest I can come is the following statement: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." (WP:BLPDEL) That section of BLP policy is partly about deletion of articles and partly about deletion of material. I doubt it will satisfy your rather charged question, though. Another thing worth pondering, though, is the converse of your question, what policy requires that the material remain in the article pending discussion? (I'd kinda like to get the straw poll back on track myself.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would refer to WP:PRESERVE and WP:EW. But the reason for my question is that one of the assertions in this discussion begins "A concensus is required to add or keep such material in a BLP."  I'm asking whether that's anything other than one editor's private opinion.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been extremely cautious not to do anything that would get the page locked, however I cannot find much wrong with the wording that was removed in this edit, or see that there was a clear consensus to remove it on BLP grounds. Normally, the BBC and The Guardian are not interested in the personal lives of soap stars, but they covered both Le Vell's arrest and subsequent clearance. This is why I remain puzzled about the need to remove it to "protect" Le Vell.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At present I'm not seeing much more than I just don't like it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper interview
This newspaper interview hopefully ends the arguments about whether this is BLP notable for Le Vell. This is not the first time that the ability to name the suspect in a rape case has caused controversy and led to calls for a change in the law. Similar cases have occurred with teachers.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All that is is a paid for interview with a relative (unnamed) - Youreallycan (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody forced Le Vell to comment on this issue, and there are parallels with the Murder of Joanna Yeates, where Yeates' landlord was vilified in the media after being arrested. The wording in the article is extraordinarily careful not to incriminate Le Vell, who has commented on this issue personally (as has Yeates' landlord). Please don't create BLP problems where none exist. (No evidence in the source that the relatives of Le Vell were paid).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Parallels with the Yates issue - is pure exaggeration. - Clearly the people paid for the interview - the relative is not even named - its a very poor article indeed. - There are no comments from Le Veil in that interview - there are claims of what a relative in a paid interview says Le Vasil said. http://www.webcitation.org/64XCkzek5 - have a closer read of the article. Youreallycan (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the source again. Le Vell spoke through relatives, but there is no mention of payment. "Le Vasil" is not mentioned in this source.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Words should not be put in the subjects mouth by unnamed relatives. A celebrity magazine reported that according to an unnamed relative Le Veil said ..bla bla - I removed it as the valueless content it is. Youreallycan (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, but if you had actually read the source, it does not say that anyone was paid. This was WP:OR.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly in my experience, comments from an unnamed relative, that was paid for. It's not usual to announce payments for such. Youreallycan (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * - Yate's case was commented on in law and he was awarded large sums and I think guidance was given to change the way things are reported moving forward - this case is nothing at all to compare to that. Youreallycan (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Daily Star, Le Vell is quoted as saying in a statement: "Following the conclusion of the police enquiry into allegations that have been widely publicised in the national press, I would like to acknowledge and give thanks to the Greater Manchester Police for the fair, thorough and independent investigation that they have conducted. I have maintained my innocence throughout and I am delighted to be completely exonerated by the decision that there will be no further action taken in this matter. I would like to thank the public sincerely for their loyal support during what has been a most difficult and upsetting phase in my life. I also want to give special thanks to my colleagues on Coronation Street and ITV Studios and ITV for their unwavering support of me. It is now my intention to continue working and hope to put this extremely difficult period behind me." This has not been added to the article because of the likely objection that the Daily Star is not a reliable source etc, but it does appear to be a comment directly from Le Vell, rather than through relatives.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Standard press statement, what would you add from that? I notice there is nothing about the last claims from the People article of his wanting changes to laws though. It is copyright though and perhaps unnecessary to post the whole thing here. Youreallycan (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue
We cant add alleged children's names without a reliable source, its a violation of our WP:BLP policy. Please read the policy if you arent familiar with it. IMO we shouldnt be adding the names, they may be minors, even with a reliable source but we can discuss that here. Without one any edits will be reverted as BLP even trumps our WP:3RR policy, so important is it considered♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The names have appeared in some media coverage, but fail WP:BLPNAME. BLP articles do not name the children of celebrities unless there is a clear need.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree. WP:BLPNAME clearly states that family members may be named if properly sourced. There are many sources in the public domain. You cannot make up your own rules as you go along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.139.90 (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But you havent properly sourced or made an attempt to do so so you are breaking our BLP policy. Please desist from doing so. I agree with Ian that even if we sourced this info there is no requirement for it in this article. Your behaviour will be reported to the BLP noticeboard if it doesnt cease immediately♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article already says he has two children. We don't need to know their names, even if sourced. – anemone projectors – 16:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/actor/michael-le-vell. Will that do? And do please point me to the part of BLP policy that determines whether there is a "requirement" or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.139.90 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am quoting from WP:BLPNAME here "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." Enough said♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec'd)I would also add that the policy then states "However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." There was no sourcing for these children in the article when i removed and when you, 124..., reverted. The policy not merely empowers but demands such unsourced material should be deleted♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will you now be removing all references to his wife, whose inclusion seems to be covered by the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.139.90 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wont. We know his wife isnt a minor (we dont with his kids, he's only 48), she is herself an actress who has even appeared in Coronation Street herself just not a very notable one (but in that profession one can expect notability with a bit of luck, ie it isnt considered negative by actresses for an actress to become notable) and including the separation adds genuine information to the bio about Le Vell, none of which can be said about his kids. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Fame
"He is best known for his role as garage mechanic Kevin Webster on the ITV soap opera Coronation Street"

I feel that sentence is no longer accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.190.245 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Err, why? Seems accurate enough to me, he certainly isnt well known for any other roles. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, his trial is only widely publicised because of his notability as an actor. If he were not an actor (for example if he were a real garage mechanic), then the events of his trial would not make him notable by Wikipedia's standards. The sentence "is best known for his role" remains entirely accurate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If he had been found guilty yesterday we might have done it differently today but as he has been found innocent what we have is entirely fair and there should not even be a mention of the trial in the opening♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * He is only known for that one role. (92.11.199.164 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC))

Rehab
It should be mentioned that Le Vell is in rehab for drug addiction as this is directly related to his trial. It is questionable whether his career will survive the controversy. (92.11.199.157 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC))


 * He could've bought a chocolate bar on 8 September 2013 due to wanting something to cheer him up during a difficult period of the trial, and that would be directly related to his trial, but it doesn't mean we would include it. As for your second sentence, this seems to be just your opinion, and it's not clear how it's relevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is only the tabloids that have covered this, and this leads to some sourcing issues. WP:BLP articles are written conservatively and with more regard for a person's private life than most tabloid newspapers. If he is dropped from the cast of Coronation Street for whatever reason, this should undoubtedly be mentioned in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Le Vell is going to be dropped from the series if this rehab doesn't work. A high-profile British star going to rehab for drug abuse and alcoholism is very noteworthy. (92.11.202.29 (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC))


 * Why, do such things not normally happen to British actors and TV stars? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article should mention he admitted being a chronic alcoholic and having multiple affirs while his wife was being treated for cancer. My grandfather said Le Vell should have been sacked even though he wasn't found guilty of the sexual abuse charges. (92.11.195.14 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Michael Le Vell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430105914/http://www.itv.com:80/Sport/Darts/CelebrityProfiles/MichaelLeVell/default.html to http://www.itv.com/Sport/Darts/CelebrityProfiles/MichaelLeVell/default.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Le Vell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120724001453/http://www.clickliverpool.com/hot-click/celeb-stories/121293-what-made-street-star-a-gay-icon.html to http://www.clickliverpool.com/hot-click/celeb-stories/121293-what-made-street-star-a-gay-icon.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020054901/http://www.ratiomoney.co.uk/ to http://www.ratiomoney.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)