If I understand correctly, then, you argued that an on-line men's magazine is "a more reliable source than the widely referenced IMDB.com"  because you'd seen the reliability of the latter questioned, but not the former.  That's not good grounds for a comparison. As for trivia, in so far as what's trivial is subjective (and I contend that it isn't), then we can apply the test of consensus.  How many editors think that an actress's self-deprecating comments to a journalist about her looks are trivial, and how many don't?  As you've insisted on removing a negative comment on her acting ability (pretty central to her identity as an actress), despite its being backed by a reputable source, I'm not sure that you're exactly neutral here. 

 Wikipedia isn't a fanzine. There are lots of outlets for writing that detials actresses' every giggly comment, and go into detail about their private thoughts and insecurities, while ignoring or denying every adverse judgement about them, but this isn't one of them.  She's at best a minor actress, and I'd have said that the article says at least as much about her as is warranted by her significance.  In any case, Wikipedia articles aren't subject to capitalist economic theory, whereby there has to be constant growth.  There is content here, and you need to make a case for there being more.