Talk:Derrick Davenport

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: Arts and Entertainment

	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 the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

So tell me how we are supposed to add information on a pornographic actor when the pornographic archive isnt allowed as a source, and when a direct link to the full video is dismissed as "meh, its just a promo vid" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.183.240 (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Smut Junkies is what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. And a video of him is not a reliable source either, because he allegedly is doing that under a different name. When it comes to writing about living people, Wikipedia is very strict about that. If you want to see if Smut Junkies is a reliable source, there is a page to discuss that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what it comes down to are those first four words: Í do not think. If the Gay Erotic Archive is considered an unreliable source, then scores and scores of articles on Wikipedia need to be deleted. What exactly is unreliable about it? The trashy name? The sex ads? Because as far as databases go, there is no better.

And the video with him in it, I repeat, with him in it, is not a reliable source because he's doing it under a different name? Is that not the entire point of this edit, his different name? Are you part of his management or what?

Basically what you're saying is that not until Derrick Davenport comes out and says "Hi, I have an alias" and e-mails that to Wikipedia, you don't consider it a reliable source. You're going to end up with a very skinny Wikipedia if that's your ridiculously high standard.

ALSO: the video for JeremyEast.com may have been under a different name, the video for Otoko Entertainment was done UNDER HIS OWN REAL NAME, Derrick Davenport. So you should not have deleted that one according to your own rules. Kindly put it back, hon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.12.28 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Even if Mr. Davenport sent an email to Wikipedia (which would be something he'd have to do with WP:OTRS), it would not be a reliable source for information on this article. If he spoke to any news outlet and said "I did a video with ByGoneBoys where I performed under the name 'Derrick Greenleaf' and I also did a video with Otoko Art", then we could use that and write about it here. We need something other than links to videos and Smut Junkies (which is only good as an external link, really and is only used 32 times on this project) to say all of the things that were in the article. It's better to have a small article with no unsourced content on it than it is to have a large article full of information we cannot reliably prove, especially if it's about a person walking about on this Earth.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reitirate, we here at Wikipedia would rather err on the side of caution and have a short article with very little information that we can prove is true rather than have a large article full of information that we cannot prove is true. We are doing this for the sake of the subject of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]