Talk:Fleur Revell

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2024. 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 sourced must 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.

Biography

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

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Significance of an affair

The article currently has more than half the Lead devoted to an affair with a fellow news-reader. Revell is cast as the femme fatale in classic tabloid style: young woman has affair with older guy, breaks up his marriage, drops him and writes a 'tell-all'. This is not encyclopaedic content.

Whilst the affair may have impacted her career, it is hardly significant enough to define her as a person. The lack of significance of the affair is reflected by the fact that its not even mentioned in the corresponding article on the other half of the affair.

It should not dominate the Lead of this article as it does. If deemed necessary for this article at all then a single summary sentence in her career section would be sufficient.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Everything you have written is completely wrong. The affair is significant. the affair is hugely significant. In fact, there doesn't need to be anything else on the page except for the information on the affair. Nobody knew who she was before the affair and nobody would know she is now except for that affair. The fact that it isn't on the page of the other half of the affair is also irrelevant. He wasn't made famous through that affair. He actually had a career. He was a distinguished journalist with his own show. She was a 25 year old junior journalist-nobody. Of course it shouldn't rate a mention for him. The fact that she had an affair with a married man and contributed to the break up of that marriage, does define her character. Thus, I'll be gathering the relevant information and putting it back in. Other wikipedia articles contain such information, thus it should be there. I agree that is shouldn't be written in a tabloid style - but is certainly encyclopedia content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.248.67.245 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another NPOV issue

In addition to the above:

a position she left amidst controversy, taking leave from publisher Pacific Publishing after just seven months in the job for what the company described as "a gross breach of confidence".
- Whilst the quote from the company at the time is presented, the article ignores the resolution described in the cited source: Revell has resigned "to pursue other interests" after an inconclusive inquiry into an email critical of the magazine's management and staff. A more neutral presentation of the facts is required.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralised tone

I've attempted to neutralise the tone in this article, I moved and trimmed the information about the affair to a single sentence in her Career section. I tried to provide a balanced overview of her leaving Pacific Publishing. I created a new section on Early life and education to move some Lead content to it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Post?

@Traumnovelle: In regards to this edit, you stated that dailypost is just original research... can you explain that? I can't find an online copy to review, but if it's a real newspaper, why wouldn't it count as a source? Have you seen the cited content yourself? Just trying to understand, thanks! CaptainAngus (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the articles are just her reporting for the Dailypost. They're citing the first articles she has written (or at least can be found by the person) and claiming it to be the start of her career. Without a source stating it is the start of her career (the interview may be useful for this) it could very well be incorrect. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: Ah, I didn't look close enough at the reference to notice that. Thanks for the explanation! CaptainAngus (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]