If there is a published source that says Merv was gay, then you can edit in that he was gay and cite the source. Deciding for yourself whether the source that someone else cited is not "reliable" is original research, and is prohibited. You may not delete factual statements that are backed up by source material, simply because you say the source is unreliablethat itself is a factual assertion that needs to be backed up with sources. Further, if you do this without siomilarly checking the "reliability" of all other cites in the article and deleting teh unreliable and deleting those without cites, then you are obviously enforcing a point of view, and you have violated NPOV. So, if you really think a cited source is unreliable, especially one in support widely acknowleged fact that ol' Merv was gay, then you had better put the kettle on because you have got your work cut out out for you. Then, of course, you'll have to go back and check all the cites on all the entries you have ever contributed to. Seems much better to find a "reliable" source that says Merv was straight, Geuss you'd still bett get that kettle on.