Talk:Stephen Martines

Claims of fraud and violence
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)
 * There are four sources. SoapHub.com is the only one that's at all questionable. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to get help from Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive279. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed this content. It gives undue weight and only concerns accusations. Having been challenged it should not have been restored.  Dloh Cier  ekim  21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Looked tabloidy.  Dloh Cier  ekim  22:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Riverfront Times seems ok. The articles look like investigative journalism. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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.  Dloh Cier  ekim  08:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The General Hospital work seems enough for notability, if that's what you're getting at. --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * where are all the references of other publishers taking up the story, or following up for that matter? 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)