Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markus (prostitute)

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 delete; the WP:BLP1E argument is persuasive. The suggestion in favor of redirecting this article to Shady Lady Ranch is arguably reasonable. However, since this is a BLP article and the subject is linked in the article title to prostitution, the approach of least harm is probably to delete rather than redirect. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Markus (prostitute)

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

Deprodded for "too many sources" even though the prod made it clear that they're all from the same two month timespan. The notability seems to be totally on WP:BLP1E, as he is notable only for being the "first legal male prostitute in the US", and did literally nothing of note afterward. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My actual explanation for deprodding this was as follows: "Deprodded: too many sources, too much edit history, multiple editors asserting notability, redirect/merge might be more appropriate, so this would be better considered at AfD." PROD is for non-controversial deletions, and when you have an edit history with multiple editors who have contested deletion and assert the notability of the subject [1][2], PROD just isn't the way to go. Also, WP:BLP1E is not necessarily an argument for deletion, since it instructs that "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article". This article is densely sourced, and if we conclude that it is an appropriate case for BLP1E, the better course of action is a merge to male prostitution or to Shady Lady Ranch, in both of which this professional pioneer is already mentioned. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources appear to cover him both leaving and joining his place of work (for want of a better term), so WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply in the strict sense. Plenty of sources in the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though every source is related only to his 2 months of fame? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[3], after this two month period, although it isn't a very reliable source. I'm not going to object to a merge and redirect, but outright deletion is clearly wrong with this scale of coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would it be reasonable to redirect this to a subsection for the article on Shady Lady Ranch? That article seems to mostly be about him anyway and together, the two could be a decent article. If/when Markus does anything that would give him additional notability outside of being the first legal male prostitute, we can un-redirect the article and flesh (drum riff) it out at that point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading parts of the article for SLR where it talked about how the brothel had tried to hire a male prostitute in 2009 but had to go through some legal issues at that point in time. It kind of confirms that I think this should redirect there, as the primary reason he was able to become legal is due to the actions of the brothel appealing to the applicable government agencies. I don't know if Markus is the same one that is discussed in 2009, but I'm more heavily leaning towards merging and redirecting there. The act was mostly accomplished by the brothel. Markus sort of just showed up at the right time. I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be a mention anywhere, just that I don't think it's really necessary to have a separate article at this point in time. It's a little premature, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. He just happened to be there- the brothel was actively looking for male applicants for the position after managing to get the ability to legally hire men. [4] I'm more thinking that the notability here lies with the actions of the brothel at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shady_Lady_Ranch#Male_prostitution, but keep the history. For right now the most important thing is that a brothel fought and won to have a legal male prostitute. The event itself is notable in my opinion, but this came about as a result of the actions of the brothel owners. Markus happened to be the first guy that was hired and while things of this nature don't automatically mean that people that "just happened to show up" can't become notable as a result, I don't really feel that this is the case here. If you get rid of all of the stupid stuff he said, ultimately what happened is this: "a brothel successfully campaigned to get the laws changed so they could hire male sex workers legally". When you boil it down to that level, I just don't really see where (at this point in time) he's notable outside of his time spent at the brothel. If he becomes notable for something else we can un-redirect and flesh the article out from there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to be a useful redirect, especially since he apparently didn't use the term prostitute. In any case, career less than 2 months, 10 paying customers... not exactly the top of the profession there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue for the inclusion of the term "prostitute" as a potential redirect term. While he didn't use the term to describe himself, several newspapers and articles did, meaning that it could be possible that someone could write the term "prostitute" with his name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Tokyogirl said. As the article stands, I see a lack of notability to justify maintaining it. However, as I can see this being a plausible redirect, there's no harm in making it one. There's no real loss, and if someone wants to search for him, a relevant article will appear. Ducknish (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple 404-ed sources in the footnotes (which doesn't imply they don't exist, I presume they do), but it's very clear that this is a first — which should count hugely towards notability, being the first legal male prostitute in America. Multiple instances of substantial sourcing about him, so blowing this up for a redirect doesn't seem appropriate. The Rosa Parks of American gigolos... Carrite (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shady Lady Ranch. WP:BLP1E, but a plausible search term I suppose. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:24, 2 April 2013 (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.