Talk:Brian Presley

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.

Twitter embarrassment

Model Is Hit On By Married Actor, Live Tweets Every Humiliating Detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that content like this meets the requirements of WP:BLP for inclusion in the article? I haven't seen this bit of gossip reported anywhere that we'd ordinarily consider a reliable source.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet, or I'd have added it. However it's a source that might become relevant in the next day or two, if the more robust 'sleb tabloids cover the story. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting more coverage, e.g. Gawker. Demesne Lord (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is remotely worth noting, just another of those brief Twitter frenzies that spring up every week or so. Let's keep it out of the article. Robofish (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason not to include this piece of news, and it can easily be removed later if there it becomes unnotable. It is sourced all over the place, including the original sources at twitter, facebook, etc. And it's the most notable thing about somebody who otherwise hardly belongs in wikipedia to begin with, and if traffic is driving to this page, why not satisfy it? Waiting a few days for it to settle out is fine, but it can more easily be included for those days than excluded. 96.224.43.92 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This story is the only reason I came to this page. I definitely think it deserves a write-up. Surreal Hamster (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The story has now shown up in a few sources of the type we generally do credit: Forbes[1], MLive.com [2], The Christian Post[3]. However, Presley has now denied that it happened the way Stetten claims: The Christian Post (again)[4], Daily Mail[5]. So, per WP:BLP, any mention of this would have to be very carefully worded. I still think it should be kept out, unless and until there is some consensus here that (i) the story is both sufficiently noteworthy to go into the story and that (ii) we have agreement on reasonable wording. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]