Talk:Cameron Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] On "unverifiable" "unsourced" content in a gay porn entry

This is an interesting case. The material under consideration is quite uncontroversial, as appears from the fact that it's been up for quite some time without any kind of problem. It all derives from factual elements taken from the videography (dates of production, studios, directors, etc..) and from a few data provided by and widely available from the relevant studios' websites. Aside from that, there are no published sources available, for the simple reason that the model in question was active 2004-2007 and there is no history of Central European gay porn. Similarly there is no "verifiable" published record of the awards the model received in 2005 and 2006. And yet he did receive them. So what to do? If this goes, and this is a model whose career, whether one likes it or not, has a major significance for the current situation, I doubt any wikipedia entry on gay pornography can survive. Maybe that's the real problem. But then there is clearly a problem with current rules and guidelines.Hierosme 22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple: if the content can be properly sourced and verified, it can stay, otherwise, it goes. Why should we bend the rules for porn bios? Extraneous videography is like advertising for the studios and the videos, it goes. 72.76.13.184 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What you call extraneous videography is a proper videography or filmography, as displayed in any reference text, with date, name of director and name of studio. It is information. For the rest, no part of the entry is more "properly sourced or verified" than any other part. So either everything goes or nothing goes. You have not addressed my comment. Do you wish to cancel all entries relating to gay porn?Hierosme 00:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please consult WP:BLP. Content must be sourced and verifiable; there are no sources in this article. Unsourced material can be removed by anybody at any time. Title of film and date is fine for videography, other info is extraneous and only advertises for studio and video. 72.76.13.184 00:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This article truly should be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.123.229 (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)