Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 06:07, 1 March 2023

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

:::: 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)

The word trivial is being applied here willy nilly. Two of the Bay Times articles and the Chronicle article, both describe her various roles (and she isn't some pornstar)and include interview material with her. The notability guideline does say trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability: so I suppose the very respectable supply of secondary sources simply have to be cast in that light to justify deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:41, 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Weak keep. Now disregarding the sekrit identity issue as the sourcing isn't up to Misplaced Pages standards, Sister Kitty Catalyst seems to be just notable enough as an activist and spokesperson for the SF queer community to have an article. The sourcing isn't the most brilliant, but there's just enough sources giving slightly more than a glancing reference to edge me into siding with keep. There's more sources out there than are currently included in the article, including three mentions in Google Books, and some more at SF Bay Times, SF Weekly etc. Fences&Windows 08:45, 11 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)
• 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)
• Delete highly questionable notability.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• De;lete I don't think there's enough significant mentions in multiple reliable sources, even with the bay articles... I don't believe in or think that WP:GNG or WP:BIO support the concept of "additive" notability; multiple trivial mentions, et al don't combine to form a notable whole. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the reasoning by several editors above. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with DJ Pusspuss to Benjamin Holmann. -->David Shankbone 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sources such as San Francisco Bay Times are sufficient to establish notability. Merging isnt even an option per the fact it would deliver negligible benefits to our readers and may put someone at risk of hate crime. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  That isn't a good reason to not merge the articles at all, or even delete them by Misplaced Pages standards. We have tons of BLPs that put people at risk for hate crimes and it has never been a valid reason for them to be deleted if notability is established. Anyway, if these articles could put somebody at risk why are you voting to keep them? The standard practice for borderline notable people with possible BLP issues is to quietly delete them. The assertion that we should indulge a person's wish for publicity while at the same time protecting their privacy is just silly. Brandon (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Folk often express contradictory preferences, and its often possible to address both concerns long as one looks at each case individually and is willing to be creative when necessary. This case is fairly simple, the same editor who expressed concerns over outing wanted to keep the article, hence my votes. I agree with you that if its known the subject doesn't want an article its best to delete even if its borderline notable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We only need one reason not to merge these articles: we have no reliable sources connecting them to each other or to any real-life identity. What we know about who wrote them, and what we think we know about that individual's real life identity, is irrelevant. Wiki gossip takes a backseat to our content policies. The fact that these are evidently autobiographies does not exempt us from following WP:BLP. We can not move this article to a different location until we have credible sources for a rename. -- Vary (Talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, at least for now. These AfDs are hot tempered and I feel the articles should be given to time to be evaluated and perhaps improved over time, when everything has cooled down. There is no deadline. If necessary, the situation could be re-evaluated in a few months. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I am cutting and pasting the following material from my talk page as I believe that here is a more appropriate place. I had added 3 more (IMO) good references to the disputed page. The anonymous editor is, supposedly, making their first contributions to Misplaced Pages. Just another funny thing that's going on. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per Simon, John and Reintour. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I'm looking at this as being borderline - there's just enough non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, such as a piece in SF Chronicle, to make me think it is worth keeping, but for me the important issue is whether or not there's enough in reliable sources (as opposed to ones which also establish notability) to make the article viable. That seems to be yes, given that all major claims in the article are sourced now to an RS. So I'm going with keep, on the grounds that notability is close enough to be in the discretionary range for me, and that there is enough to work with in order to make something that would further the project. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to be of very low notability and many rather questionable sources. The possible COI is also disturbing. - Schrandit (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Start of cut & pasted material

Misattribution/mischaracterization of source

Simonxag, the author of the text you’ve cited here is not Evans and Healey, but “Sister Soami,” formerly “Sister Missionary Position." Evans and Healey are the editors the volume in which an interview with Sr. Soami appeared.
Pseudonymous members of fringe groups do not qualify as reliable sources. Even so, if you insist upon using them, you must cite them. To do otherwise 1) denies the writer credit for his/her work 2) puts words into the mouth of the person(s) to whom the material is falsely attributed 3) deceives readers and other editors about the true source of the cited claim.
Finally, though Routledge is indeed an academic press,Amie M. Evans and Trebor Healey are not academics, nor is the book an "academic book," as you’d written. Instead, it appears that Evans is a writer of erotic fiction, while Trebor Healey is a novelist and poet.
In the future, please take care not to misattribute and mischaracterize our sources.24.22.141.252 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The authors are as I've stated them. The information does come from an interview in the book, but not from a piece written by Sister Soami. If my edit summary was inaccurate (which I think is debatable - not an academic book?), the citation in the article is 100% accurate. And I would consider the authors to be another independent reliable source to add to those already cited. Deletions, raised by sock puppets, now accusations by anonymous contributers. Things just get funnier and funnier. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the source actually state who asked the interviewer(s) was? I don't see it. If you cite a paper in a book, you should include the title of the paper, especially when the title makes it clear that Evans and Healey are not the authors of the text you've cited. But that would make it crystal-clear what a joke these sources are.

Here, you cite the "SF Bay Times" without crediting the author, "Sister Dana Van Iquity." In doing so, you likewise hide the very dubious nature of the source - are we to accept this as a serious journalist? - while denying Ms. Van Iquity credit for her writing.

Having reviewed the histories of several of these articles in detail, things have been "funny" for some time now. Here, for example, you insist that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are nuns, which you cite to a defunct porn site, contra WP:RS. Here, you restore the obviously inappropriate Category:Nuns.

Something funny is going on, alright, and it doesn't seem to have much to do with building a reliable encyclopedia.24.22.141.252 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Check google books:

1) Evans and Healey are explicitly credited as editors of the volume.

2) It is a collection of papers by various people, each of whom is explicitly credited for his/her submission. Where Evans or Healey are the authors, they are explicitly stated as such (for example, if we were to cite one of Healey's submissions, we would do so as Healey, Trebor. 2008. "Title." in Evans & Healey ed.)

3) The author in this instance is shown as "An Interview with Sister Soami of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." (p. ix).24.22.141.252 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

At least we agree on something! Something funny is definitely going on. I hid no source. Nor do I think a member of of a respected part of SF gay community, writing as herself (not anonymously!!!), in a respected local newspaper under editorial control (as all contributers must be) is any less reliable than any other journalist. And yes the Sisters are nuns: I think you'll find them described as such in most UK journalistic coverage of them, not ordinary, holy or pious, but "nuns" is the word used. Google cites Evans & Healey as both authors and editors of the work, if no other interviewer is credited then it is they. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the table of contents. In fact, the author is listed as "An Interview with Sister Soami of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence;" the paper is entitled, "Good Habits to Hang On To." If that seems unorthodox, well, it is.24.22.141.252 (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Unorthodox yes - but the interviewer is not an interview: it is Evans & Healey's book and they are the stated authors. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing at all which indicates that the questions were written by anyone other than "Sister Soami" (a.k.a. "Sister Missionary Position") him/herself, do you?

As with "SF Bay Times", it seems we'll do anything we can to hide the fact that our purported academics and journalists are really just various pseudonymous members of this fringe group.24.22.141.252 (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done nothing to hide anything. My name is Simon Speed, what's yours?!!! I have found some reliable sources, which seems to be a problem, for some. I don't know anything about Evans & Healey, except that their book is published by a reputable academic publisher: I suspect (from the subject) that they may be gay and members of the Roman Catholic Church. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So we're just going to pretend that your source isn't "Sister Soami"?24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretend what you like. The source is Evans & Healey as stated and as can be verified by anyone checking it. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I invite anyone reading this to verify for him/herself: the front cover, publication data, table of contents and the "interview" are all available for preview.24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have improved on those two refs by using {{cite book}} and {{cite news}}, filling in the details and using "quote=" to record what is said rather than paraphrase. Also, the old eros-guide zine mentioned above can be found at archive.org. None of those sources are spectacular venues of indisputable information, resulting in a biog riddled with dubious information. If we do use this type of source, it is important to show the reader the dubious nature of the information by properly describing the sources. John Vandenberg 00:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

End of cut and pasted material

Comment: I'm afraid the anonymous editor is factually correct. Since Sr Soami is listed among the contributors to the volume, and did not contribute any of the other articles, it is perfectly reasonable to assume the interview is Sr Soami's work. There is no basis for inferring that the editors of the volume conducted the interview. That doesn't, however, automatically make it unreliable. The volume is published by Routledge, and was itself edited.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Delete I see several passing mentions and some quotes, but nothing that discusses the subject in depth. For any BLP our sourcing must be excellent. This sourcing is not. AniMate 22:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. I don't like the notion of several articles about one person of disputable notability being created and maintained by that person, if this is indeed how it is. It seems to be that at tge very least these articles should be merged into one article where any COI issues are clearly manageable.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Passing mentions and the odd quote doesn't constitute anything like significant coverage in my book. The more in depth sources do not look like what we would expect of reliable sources. If anything, the 'notes' given in the references section just backs up that this person hasn't actually received much notice. Quantpole (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A text-book case of trivial mentions in local newspapers not adding up to notability. 85.92.213.195 (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - reads like a promotional piece, no clear evidence of notability of this persona. Also per CHL, Alison, Smallbones, et al, who have made cogent points that I agree with. perhaps this could be merged with material about all the other personas if it could be identified who the actual person behind them is, although I have my doubts, but not clearly independently notable. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - As others have said, it reads as a promotional piece, and lacks any serious reliable sourcing. Passing mention in the local paper does not make one notable. Sχeptomaniac 15:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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.