Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Dylan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Moonlite BunnyRanch#Publicity stunts. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Dylan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual is known for a single publicity stunt and the article is a case of WP:BLP1E. Previous discussion can be found here. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Certainly could be a BLP1E problem, but A) given the breadth of coverage I'd say not and B) I'm unclear if this _is_ a BLP given the use of the pseudonym. That said, I don't see a whole lot of encyclopedic content here. Hobit (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep though I'd support changing the article to refer to the event rather than the person, since the whole thing was in part a publicity stunt by Bunny Ranch. The amount of coverage and the discussions it initiated in different media regarding the value of virginity and morality of prostitution (which are both covered in the article in reasonable quality prose and good sourcing) are, IMO, aspects that justify the existence of this article. --Waldir ^talk 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Moonlite BunnyRanch#Publicity stunts. This is a publicity stunt and a single event. Coverage of the event is already a section in the bunny ranch article and any additonal infromationt hat is relevant can be added to the section there. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Whpg. STAT -Verse 08:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP issues are minimized because the name is a pseudonym. Am ok with merge also for now. I suspect the perpetrator is trying to sell a book or something since the whole thing was likely not legit, but got huge press (of course!) (For the ladies, Merle Montgomery is ready for ya[1]) Waldir's suggestion is also good, a la Yale student abortion art controversy which is where Aliza Shvarts ended up, a very similar type of news drama as this one. -- maybe List of notable virginity auctions would be a good only-on-wikipedia title, because this is not the only case of a virginity auction.--Milowent (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree very much with Milowent (thanks for the link to the other article, btw). Maybe a better title could be Value of virginity, which could be merged with the correspondent section of Virginity to form a new article. The example you provide of a man doing the same would also be relevant to include, as a contrast displaying the opposite perception (devaluation) of male virginity (both from the lack of offers and from the lack of similar serious attempts). --Waldir ^talk 19:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must disclose because I realize people may not be able to tell, but the male article is actually a joke. sorry :-) But there really are other cases of females offering to do this.--Milowent (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol! I did think that "burn up a nasty old lady" bit was a kind of over the top, but the rest indeed looked believable enough. I guess I've been seeing too much of mankind's weirdness lately :) --Waldir ^talk 21:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I took an initial stab at reorganizing and splitting up the other cases which were already mentioned and could be expanded. I also updated the article with the May 2010 revelation that she never went through with it. Of course.--Milowent (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above suggestions, for their reasons. Etrigan (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.