Talk:Ricky Martin

Inclusion of now withdrawn allegations

User:Slywriter has removed the allegations by his nephew citing WP:BLPCRIME. However, that doesn't really apply here as this is specifically for people who aren't public figures, which Martin is. The allegations were really the biggest news about Martin in a very long time. I would actually argue that not including the information about the allegations (and very importantly how they were subsequently completely dropped) actually makes Martin look worse here because if you heard of the allegations but not the subsequent developments, you might come to think that it's just being censored. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There is also WP:DUE, which would say a one week non-story of an allegation by someone appearing to lack credibility does not deserve a full section with a header. As well as the fact this was the "biggest news in a very long time" goes against argument that public figure applies. It was covered by media specifically because it was sensational, not because Ricky Martin is currently in the public eye.

If inclusion is felt to override BLP concerns, a brief mention at best would be the appropriate path, not a full section. Slywriter (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, at most its a one-sentence note.★Trekker (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Trekker. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t support including it because it was incredibly brief, sensationalistic, and went nowhere. It’ll probably be completely forgotten in a year, wp:notability is not temporary, and including it against WP:DUE to satisfy the “OMGWTFBBQ CENSORSHIP” crowd borders on defamation. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV, promotional language

This article has a promotional tone and is packed with trivial detail. Ricky Martin is certainly a big deal, but some of the flattery here seem overdone. Do we really need a score of citations listing 30+ genres his music has been described as? That's hardly helpful to the reader. Is it really important to know that he was the eighth-most-searched celebrity on Google in 2022? Do we need quotes from 10+ separate publications talking about how he's a big Latin pop star but adding no other useful content? Or a listing of fashion shows he has attended? Does anyone care that he does yoga in the morning? Is that really a notable detail? etc etc etc - there are dozens of examples throughout the article. I'm going to take a swing at cleaning this up in the next couple days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've made a series of changes and removals, but the article could still use improvement. Essentially, it was written from the perspective of a fan, not from a neutral, encyclopedic perspective. While there are passages of good writing, the mass of complimentary detail overwhelmed any sense of NPOV. Further work is needed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Hi, please read the content that I re-added and check them with more caution. For example the fact that he was ranked among the most influential Latin artists or greatest Latin artists of all time, is not "promotional" at all, these are some main info that every biography of artists use. Please do not remove all of them, read them carefully and compare with other biographies and then remove some parts if they are unnecessaries. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe the lead already does a good job communicating Martin's importance to pop and Latin music. There are countless lists and rankings available, and it's just not very useful to the reader to cherry-pick a few of them and add them to the lead. It's redundant of the text that already exists in the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)