Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination)

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. Not enough strong, policy driven keep arguments to counter the those wanting deletion. A few keeps' main focus seemed to be 'wait and see in a few months', and those remaining didn't do enough 'illustrating' of notability. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close Sorry folks this AfD was started by an indefinitely blocked user - acting through his sock-puppet. I am closing as a matter of correct procedure - illegitimate socks cannot edit anywhere on the 'pedia and should not be allowed to start an AfD. Please note I do not close this discussion with any objection to it being immediately restarted - and I ask that an interested editor please do so with their own reasons as soon as possible.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Cool Hand Luke has reinstigated this AfD after correctly usurping responsibility from the illegitimate sock who initially commenced this AfD.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• I take full responsibility for this nomination. This was originally nominated by a banned user, but their reasons were sound. In particular, WP:BIO states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are few independent and reliable published secondary sources about this character; the bulk of them appear to be self-written. Cool Hand Luke 22:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pusspuss (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)

• Looking at the last AfD and talk pages, it has been suggested that DJ Pusspuss=Sister Kitty Catalyst=Benji Holmann, and it seems likely certain that this is correct: "DJ PussPuss (Sister Kitty/ Benji)"[6]; "Benji aka DJ Pusspuss"[7]; Benjamin Holmann says "I also dj as DJ Pusspuss"[8]; Both Holmann and Sister Kitty are co-founders of "Beautiful Lips on Whistles" and OUCH and organisers of the SF Aids Candlelight Vigil[9][10]; B Holmann uses the Yahoo identity Pusspusspuss, which is Sister Kitty's email address, and the profile for that ID is under the name DJ Pusspuss[11][12][13]. Do the real life person and the two personas not have enough notability between them for an article? Fences&Windows 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to rain on the identity parade here but in all that research there is only one unreliable source stating the two people are the same. This is not new, the rest of your original research is definitely interesting but only suggests the two are likely the same. Many organizations have multiple co-founders so not much there. Sharing an email account is more compelling but also not conclusive. -- Banjeboi 21:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going with a very weak keep, on account that he has his name out there. Given Fences' note that the three personalities are pretty much the same, I'd be more inclined to merge the three articles out there, since they are the same person. Does Benji have an article of his own?.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holmann doesn't have an article. As I'm playing join the dots with primary sources Wikilawyers may argue against a merge - there's no reliable secondary source that says in black and white that the three are the same. Fences&Windows 16:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with other page and make one biography based on original person. There is not enough notability to suggest having two persona pages, and they are best used as two parts of one greater biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 19:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 19:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 19:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep. Since I last went through and added sources I have been unable to find the radio interviews that were online previously. I'll leave it for others to decide if this meets GNG with what we have. With Fences and windows' excellent detective work seems they co-founded several organizations. There were several two-hour interviews that certainly were independent although they were hardly hard news. They were, BTW, with the same person being used to source the connection but nothing in the interviews addressed any connection or identity besides the DJ one but was helpful to add in some biographical and early life content. Despite Fences and windows' excellent detective work I don't see any sourcing to back up a merge. There is only one unreliable source - an entry on livejournal.com no less - making the assertion but looking through their other entries they seem to make mistakes. There is also the possibility we have two people sharing one email account and by extension, likely live together and work on projects together. -- Banjeboi 21:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you DJ Pusspuss? Cool Hand Luke 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll give you the same answer I give everytime I'm asked if I am so-and-so. I've been accused of being many of the folks in the bios and articles I've worked on, even being a part of Rosie O'Donnell's R Family Vacations. Because of both real world and wikipedia attacks and threats I keep my information private. The one exception to this rule is Chris Crocker who i will again deny being as he apparently gets daily death threats. Editing Wikipedia is not worth being killed. -- Banjeboi 22:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't speculate on the identity of Wikipedia editors. If they chose to be pseudonymous, we respect that. Nobody has yet asked me if I'm Naomi Klein, despite my username. I'm guessing Cool Hand Luke isn't Paul Newman.

As for my detective work, the blogger Ms. Kittywhore/Melinda Adams makes the same association in another post, and certainly seems to know Holmann well, especially as her name appears side-by-side with Holmann's in a section of thanks in this newsletter, she worked with him an event and she should know Sister Kitty as she works with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. So whatever Wikipedia rules say, I know the truth. Fences&Windows 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We out people all the time when we think they have a COI of interesting, outting only seems to be a problem when it's someone who's been around for a while (which is a double standard in itself). I would hope that if a COI interest did exist for any of our editors, that they cease and desist. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::: No we dont out folk "all the time". If we suspect there is a COI, and there's a clear case someone's editing against NPOV, then in the first instance the polite thing to do is to ask them to take a step back. There are plenty of other options before we should hassle an editor concerning their real life identity, especially when they've advised they may be at risk of hate crime. Lets try to retain a sense of decency here please. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. It seems that the nominating account has been blocked by an admin. I wasn't sure why, but looking at their contribs they seem to be a sock of User:Peter Damian, who is banned. I suggest we close this now as a bad faith nomination. Fences&Windows 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As the blocking admin I think it should remain open. This article has been extensively discussed in a number of places and my block was in no way an attempt to quash as what I think is a legitimate deletion debate. If this discussion is closed I have little doubt there will be another one created shortly. Brandon (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir, we are in no way attempting to quash a legitamate deletion debate, we simply feel this one is not legitimate. Wikipedia should not reward abusive editors. Editors can open another AfD immediately without it being tainted by an abusive sock puppet. If you feel strongly about this debate, close this one, and open a fresh new one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (3rd nomination). Ikip (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this is a bad faith nomination at all, but if it gets rid of unhelpful baggage, I'd be happy to restart with a blank slate for #3. Cool Hand Luke 04:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject does not seem to be notable. There are a large number of sources but many of them are dead, do not contain the information to substantiate their claim or are from highly questionable places. The potential COI is also rather disturbing. - Schrandit (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close now The nominator has been blocked indefinitely for block invasion.[14] We should not reward such behavior. AfDs should be closed immediately if created by a sock, see for example, a case were an admin closed the AFD by a sockpuppet[15] Editors can open another AfD immediately without it being nominated by an abusive sock puppet. Please close immediately. Ikip (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with their other article. Schrandit says everything I want to say. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Would seem to fail WP:BIO and is therefore non-notable. Skinny87 (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Crafty (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. - Queer Cultural Center describes him as "DJ Puss Puss aka Sister Kitty" Photo © Tommy Kohl (larger photo) (note that Tommy Kohl is the photographer of File:DJ Pusspuss by Tommy Kohl .jpg) and "DJ Puss Puss of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd like to see the Conflict of Interest problem properly addressed. There is an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. that 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) 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. These two articles were the first (and for a time, virtually only) content submitted by author. Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I found this above and posted at the other AfD - 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. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't want to verify, the article says: "Pusspuss' writings appear in various LGBT publications including San Francisco Bay Times,[4] San Francisco Spectrum[12]," Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: do not merge without extremely high-quality sourcing I'm rather uncomfortable with the amount of original research going on at these two AFDs. These are BLPs; we simply can not conflate these two identities without excellent sources showing that they are the same individual. "Verifiability, not Truth", 'member? Blog comments and mailing list posts are not going to do it, folks. Stop playing internet detective and find some real sources. -- Vary (Talk) 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research to read emails sent by Holmann and signed as DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst and conclude that it's the same person. It's not original research to read an email written by Holmann in which he says that he's DJ Pusspuss. It's not original research to read blog posts written by a close acquaintance of his who says they're the same person. It's not original research to read the caption on a website that says that DJ Pusspuss is Sister Kitty, even if it is in the Internet Archive. But as it's farcical to have two articles about personas of the same person, delete both. Fences&Windows 20:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping my support for a merge, and I think DJ Pusspuss lacks the notability necessary for an article, so delete. Fences&Windows 08:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as outlined by Vary. This person apparently kept personas separate in most cases. DJ Pusspuss fails on its own, and the sources don't compel us to merge it. Cool Hand Luke 19:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of sources to the persona being connected to a real person makes me question notability. Brandon (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vary. Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vary and Brandon. Keegan (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I followed to this link from the other AfD but i think the same issues are present. There seems to be some sleuthing going on which seems like it violates our original research policy spirit, if not the letter. Delete per lack of proper sources. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vary makes an excellent point. I don't see the nominator being banned as a reason to speedy close this nomination -- good faith edits from even banned users (which this user isn't) do not have to be reverted if they appear to be productive. — neuro^(talk) 06:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. to Benjamin Holmann. -->David Shankbone 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one of those cases when merging is not an option. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep Per Reinoutr. Or at least Merge it with Sister Kitty. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one manageable article about all the personae to Benjamin Holmann or in case this is not possible (e.g.) if Benjamin Hollman is not notable or because we have no way of conforming whether they are the same Delete.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It makes me suspicious that there are so many refs, but having looked through quite a lot of them, they don't seem to be much good. If it is wished to show that this person is notable then I suggest a radical pruning of the unreliable refs, and those with only a brief mention (e.g. being in a list of sponsors for a charity run) - there may be some decent refs that I have missed in amongst the rest. The problem with these sort of articles is that they give out an appearance of trying too hard, and makes notability more questionable, not less. Quantpole (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - reads like a promotional piece, no clear evidence of notability of this persona. 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 11:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It appears overinflated with refs that aren't actually reliable on examination (like a letter to the editor). Is someone gaming the system by adding dozens of poor-quality refs and hoping no-one will check them? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No actually, I was adding what sources that were there but agree they should be clumped instead. As is one ref for six sources showing they had been quoted. Gaming was certainly not intended at all. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Articles which conceal important information about their subjects (in this case that they are the same person) constitute deliberate disinformation. There is no place in Wikipedia for that. 195.188.41.154 (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2009 (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.