Talk:Stephen Martines

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: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal 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 supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Missouri

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Robert Langellier (2018-02-08). "The Pool Repairman and the Hollywood Hustle". Riverfront Times. Retrieved 2019-02-02. A curiously detailed Wikipedia page describes a promising soccer career tragically ended by injury, as well as his discovery as an underwear model by Heidi Klum and Tyra Banks.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

RedRoseRecords (talk · contribs)
Wildhorse17 (talk · contribs)

Claims of fraud and violence[edit]

I recommend that this section be removed. The claims are unproven allegations (Martines does not appear to have been convicted of anything) and the sources are gossip magazines rather than legitimate news outlets. WP:BLP argues that this type of material has no place at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sources. SoapHub.com is the only one that's at all questionable. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get help from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive279#Stephen_Martines_-_help_needed. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this content. It gives undue weight and only concerns accusations. Having been challenged it should not have been restored. DlohCier ekim 21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it appears that three of the four sources seem fine and indicate some mention is due. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looked tabloidy. DlohCier ekim 22:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riverfront Times seems ok. The articles look like investigative journalism. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KSDK is the St. Louis NBC affiliate. The tv footage is a bit sensationalist, but I don't see how the report is remotely "tabloidy". Again, this looks like investigative journalism. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still unproven allegations from minor outlets at best. And it takes up the bulk of an almost empty article. There was more content, but I guess it was removed as unsourced. DlohCier ekim 08:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a large amount of content, almost certainly added for promotion against a coi. I did some searching for sources, but didn't find anything of BLP quality.

I've not found any follow-up reporting on the accusations.

With what we have, is a brief mention due? --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck this guy. I've been watching this page since the first Riverfront Times article came out and have made a couple edits (one of which was a PROD). Prior to RFT coverage, it was a blatant COI vanity piece that never should have existed. Post RFT, it had defamatory (if false, libelous) statements that were repeatedly removed by COI socks. No, you can't use Wikipedia for blatant self promotion. You don't like that Wikipedia is saying bad things about you after you (maybe but probably) scammed a bunch of people? I'd be happy to see your article deleted if you feel libeled by it.The article now has a bunch of unreferenced acting roles and a single reference that can support Coltin Scott/General Hospital/The Closer. RFT supports role in Burn Notice while also mentioning scams. RFT and KDSK are reliable sources. Plantdrew (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is WIKI's job to pass judgment - to be judge - and prove or disprove - it's to pass along information that is of public interest. What is more of interest to the public than the possibility of scams perpetrated by someone? The Riverfront Times has been around since 1977 and is in the hometown of this guy. The local news-station ALSO reported about him. Why is all this not enough to satisfy WIKI scrutiny? Just because this guy posted some vanity information should not negate the value of the rest. Celebrity fraud is clearly of interest to a whole lotta people... even if celebrity is minor. Boxer500 (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is more of interest to the public than the possibility of scams perpetrated by someone? "Interest" as in click-bait maybe. The "possibility..." directly collides with BLP as well.

If you are right, then where are all the references of other publishers taking up the story, or following up for that matter? Where are the continuing legal proceedings? --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is any other coverage of this individual at all, let alone references for all the acting roles credited to him in this article? Plantdrew (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The General Hospital work seems enough for notability, if that's what you're getting at. --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

where are all the references of other publishers taking up the story, or following up for that matter?</ref> Please advise how many other publishers are required besides 1. Riverfront Times (since 1977) 2. KSDK, an NBC affiliate TV Station (founded in 1947)? Why are you policing established news outlets who presumably fact-checked their articles lest they be hit with a lawsuit? It's been a year since the articles came out. If it is untrue, where is the cease and desist? The stories would have been pulled by now if false. Have you read the articles/news? This isn't one person vs. one other. Pretty sure journalists still fact check! Boxer500 (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boxer500: News outlets are allowed to report allegations of misdeeds if such allegations are credible. Wikipedia, as a more or less permanent record, should avoid reports of such unproven allegations, and stick only to facts that have actually been proven in a court of law. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is just patently false. WIKI reports on unproven allegations consistently for all those that were deemed to merit a page in the first place. Volunteer Wiki editors should be enforcing consistency across WIKI, not cherry-picking exceptions to the rule. Boxer500 (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are local and the story apparently hasn't been picked up or followed. WP:BLP sets a very high bar for inclusion of such information. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]