| Revision as of 15:34, 7 September 2009 editIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 edits 3rr yet?← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:41, 7 September 2009 edit undoCraftyminion (talk | contribs)3,120 edits NopeNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | ||
| :{{la|Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| *'''Delete''' per CHL above and per ] - ] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per CHL above and per ] - ] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' There was some discussion of identity & COI in the past. See . But I will add that the COI and notability issues are '''not''' the same. --] (]) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' There was some discussion of identity & COI in the past. See . But I will add that the COI and notability issues are '''not''' the same. --] (]) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' - Either we shit or get off the pot. Benjiboi is Sister Kitty and Dj PussPuss. He's created these articles and lied about their provenance. ] (]) 13:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::No need to either shit, or get off the pot (see below). There is a need to be sensitive to avoid the possibility of harassment, while still recognizing that there is an obvious conflict of interest, whether a=b=c or not, since they obviously know each other and work together. ] (]) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Harassment be damned and confound your eyes sir! Benji wouldn't be in this unpleasant situation if he hadn't added these vanity articles to the encyclopedia in the first place. ] (]) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' sources here are either of questionable reliability or refer to fairly trivial matters, BLP quality sources are lacking, as is notability. The conflict of interest problem magnifies all these basic problems, but by itself doesn't mean we should delete. ] (]) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' sources here are either of questionable reliability or refer to fairly trivial matters, BLP quality sources are lacking, as is notability. The conflict of interest problem magnifies all these basic problems, but by itself doesn't mean we should delete. ] (]) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:41, 7 September 2009
Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
- Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO - all of the sources are trivial mentions of her activities for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Now that organisation is notable but notability is not inherited. If it was, the sources just don't support the article - the only really informative one is from the SOPI website and that does not count for the purposes of notability. At best, a small bit could be merged to that article. Cameron Scott (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as nominated. Fails WP:BIO. Crafty (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep The 2 San Francisco Bay Times articles are more than enough to establish notability. Of course they talk about Sister Kitty as a member of the SPI, she is one and they're interesting. But both (fair sized articles) deal with her public health activism and use quotes from interviews with her. I wonder if the editor who found only "trivial mentions" actually read any of them. Of the other references the "San Francisco's 4th Sex Worker Film and Arts Festival" isn't independent of her as she has a role in it, but does anyone doubt this role or its notability? I haven't even bothered Googling, the stated references in the article are sufficient: something funny is going on here. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- But they are not about her, they are about the work of her within the organisation structure. Which is way, merging some of the content there makes more sense. And as I said on your talkpage, if you have something to say, say it, nothing worse than snide comments intended to poison the well. What's funny in my actions? How, where, diffs. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Simply not true, the references document her work as a public health activist, as an artist and also as a member of the SPI (I have now found an academic ref which says she is an archivist for them). Articles do mention the SPI, but then if the subject is called "Sister Kitty Catalyst" an explanation is required: they do notdescribe her art as being the Sisters' work, but rather her own. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- And I have replied on my talk page.
- But they are not about her, they are about the work of her within the organisation structure. Which is way, merging some of the content there makes more sense. And as I said on your talkpage, if you have something to say, say it, nothing worse than snide comments intended to poison the well. What's funny in my actions? How, where, diffs. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- :::: No they don't, you've just added 1) trivial reference from a book mentioning her in the context of her work for SPOI - literally a line that says "thanks to Kitty", 2) a trivial reference from an article written by someone in her organisation and 3) a trivial mention about her in a wider article - and that's the best source of the lot about her as a person. It's still a whole lot of nothing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per my statement here. If there is any information, it would have to be merged into one biography of the subject behind each persona. The individual who is underlying both might be notable, but not notable enough to have two different pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- What's slightly problematical is that together as a single article, there is enough to make me vote keep. Really the articles should be merged and worked on together and then the single article should be considered. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since I lack a name of the person underneath the persona, there is no place to merge to, which is why my vote is delete at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any precedent for having a 'slash' article ? Kitty Catalyst/DJ Puss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt it. Now, in terms of "personas", a person like Christopher Smart had the persona "Mrs Mary Midnight". That persona is worthy of having its own article since there are books and books written about it. There is a much higher level needed to have a persona on its own page. The name should be on the individual behind the persona, which shouldn't be too hard to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any precedent for having a 'slash' article ? Kitty Catalyst/DJ Puss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since I lack a name of the person underneath the persona, there is no place to merge to, which is why my vote is delete at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- What's slightly problematical is that together as a single article, there is enough to make me vote keep. Really the articles should be merged and worked on together and then the single article should be considered. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know the name from a bit of internet research, problem is, I know 'the truth' but have no way of providing verification. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Put up what you have as long as it doesn't out any Misplaced Pages users and others can see what they can make of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know the name from a bit of internet research, problem is, I know 'the truth' but have no way of providing verification. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep; all combined this person is notable in my book, however if the subject doesn't want a biog I could be convinced to abstain or vote delete. John Vandenberg 14:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- "All combined" seems to agree with my point that if there is information on Wiki, it should be at one place, no? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd like to see the Conflict of Interest problem that was raised at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) properly addressed. That AfD turns on the same issues. Something or someone seems to be out of control here, and addressing the conflict of interest might be the way to simplify the whole thing. Smallbones (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have emailed you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Barring any objection from the subject, Keep per sources sited by Simon. The article should remain at its current location, as this is the one used in the sources being used to prove notability. And could we please avoid doing our own OR on the individual behind the persona? Reliable sources only on this WP:BLP subject's birth name, if you don't mind. Email them to each other if you must share. No opinion on the DJ article except that, again, reliable sources will be required to link the two identities. -- Vary (Talk) 15:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be verification of the identity of Holmann, of the Spectrum, being DJ Puss Puss - "I also dj as DJ Pusspuss (mainly private events and awide variety of benefits) so I have an active and street knowledge of what people are seeking." It is reliable as it comes from the individual himself and is done as an official act in promotion of the column. The column happens to be used as reliable sourcing, mind you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more skeptical about using an archived mailing list post as a reliable source in a BLP, but it's unimportant at the moment. Until we have a reliable source connecting A to B, it's irrelevant that we can connect B to C. -- Vary (Talk) 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Vary, that is a reliable source because it is 1. official business as it is promotional for a business and has all of the business information on it, 2. from the person in question (thus falling under primary sourcing for use of blogs and the such), and 3. not controversial as there is no denial of it made in a public source. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I concur, it's fine under our guidelines on self-publication. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. BLP mandates that we use only high-quality sources and I simply don't think this qualifies. As the DJ's notability is far more marginal it's unsurprising that there is no more reliable source for his real name. But for the moment that's a matter for the DJ article's AFD, as there has been no reliable source provided connecting the subject of this AFD to the subject of that article. -- Vary (Talk) 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I concur, it's fine under our guidelines on self-publication. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Vary, that is a reliable source because it is 1. official business as it is promotional for a business and has all of the business information on it, 2. from the person in question (thus falling under primary sourcing for use of blogs and the such), and 3. not controversial as there is no denial of it made in a public source. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- from WP:BLP Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. - how does that not fit? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a weak source for the DJ article. At the moment, it's not a source for this article at all. -- Vary (Talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- how about this --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- A caption on a photo from an old webpage only available on archive.org? No, Cameron, that is not a reliable source. All I've seen so far is little better than gossip. Googlestalking a persona and 'figuring out' their real identity is inappropriate. We need real sources from real publications. I've never understood the perception that this kind of behavior is banworhty when it's directed at a fellow editor but perfectly acceptable when some marginally notable BLP subject is involved. -- Vary (Talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- how about this --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a weak source for the DJ article. At the moment, it's not a source for this article at all. -- Vary (Talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- You better get over to IFD then because the photos on both articles are provided by the same photographer, we better delete both on them to be on the safe side. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more skeptical about using an archived mailing list post as a reliable source in a BLP, but it's unimportant at the moment. Until we have a reliable source connecting A to B, it's irrelevant that we can connect B to C. -- Vary (Talk) 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to DJ Pusspuss. It's blindingly obvious that both DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst are personas of Benjamin Holmann. There's much more evidence on the other AfD. Keeping up the fiction that we don't know that DJ Pusspuss=Sister Kitty=Holmann is wearing thin. Fences&Windows 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- You mean merge with DJ Pusspuss and form Benjamin Holmann, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. Both together, maybe, but if you insist on having them as independent "personalities" then there simply isn't enough. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources tying them together are not BLP-worthy. As a separate entity, I don't think there's enough non-trivial independent material. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete lack of sources to the persona being connected to a real person makes me question notability. Brandon (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per CHL above and per WP:BIO - Alison 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There was some discussion of identity & COI in the past. See . But I will add that the COI and notability issues are not the same. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Either we shit or get off the pot. Benjiboi is Sister Kitty and Dj PussPuss. He's created these articles and lied about their provenance. Crafty (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- No need to either shit, or get off the pot (see below). There is a need to be sensitive to avoid the possibility of harassment, while still recognizing that there is an obvious conflict of interest, whether a=b=c or not, since they obviously know each other and work together. Smallbones (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Harassment be damned and confound your eyes sir! Benji wouldn't be in this unpleasant situation if he hadn't added these vanity articles to the encyclopedia in the first place. Crafty (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- No need to either shit, or get off the pot (see below). There is a need to be sensitive to avoid the possibility of harassment, while still recognizing that there is an obvious conflict of interest, whether a=b=c or not, since they obviously know each other and work together. Smallbones (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete sources here are either of questionable reliability or refer to fairly trivial matters, BLP quality sources are lacking, as is notability. The conflict of interest problem magnifies all these basic problems, but by itself doesn't mean we should delete. Smallbones (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)