Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:34, 21 September 2009

Ashida Kim

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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..

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 ===[[Ashida Kim]]===
+''The result was '''keep'''. The actual discussion has been [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking|hidden from view for privacy reasons]] but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  <span style="color:red">'''No further edits should be made to this page.'''</span>''. {{NOINDEX}}<!-- inserted using Template:afd-privacy --></div>
-I am renominating this page for deletion, asking editors to reconsider whether they kept it before partly based on the rudeness of the subject.  The fact that he doesn't want the article is not enough reason to keep it.
-Additionally, I should note that the article seems entirely and completely unverifiable.  We say that he's a controversial martial artist, but is he?  Does he even exist?  Is there a newspaper article or any credible source?  Those who are complaining against him, do they exist?  Is there a newspaper article or any credible source?
-What I see here is a fight from elsewhere which has spilled over into Wikipedia.  None of the participants seem at all notable by any external measure.  Flaming each other all over the web doesn't give us anything verifiable or notable by way of fact.  --[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 17:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-* Non verifiable [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 17:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-* '''No vote''' as I am merely a facilitator in the relisting of this article.  For the September 2005 discussion of this subject, please refer to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim]].  [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] 18:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-* I completely agree that the rudeness of an article's subject should in no way be an argument for ''or'' against keeping the article. That said, I vote '''keep''', for a number of reasons.
-:# Jimbo, I am a little confused by your blanket assertion of "unverifiable". Are you claiming that we can know nothing at all about Ashida Kim? Yes, he is a fictitious Internet persona. But he has given his name to many, many things, and this has made him quite well-known; most of the facts on the page right now are verifiable. He has published books, for instance; I can probably look up the ISBN numbers. How is that not verifiable?  I myself knew of Ashida Kim well before I had ever heard of Bullshido.
-:# The article has ''just'' been through a VfD, which ended in a '''keep''' consensus by a rather large margin. I don't think it's a good idea to re-nominate it so soon, and--regardless of any other considerations--I would vote keep on principle, just based on this.
-:# The same reason I gave in the original VfD. Ashida Kim is ''very'' notable in martial arts communities; not just Bullshido. Like it or not, he has made a name for himself, and he should have an article on Wikipedia. I agree that the article is not ideal, and needs a healthy injection of facts and NPOV. I do ''not'' consider that a valid reason for deleting it, however. Wikipedia is about improving imperfect articles, not deleting them. --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 18:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-::I see no real sense in which he has made a name for himself.  If he's so notable in martial arts circles, where are the articles about him in mainstream martial arts magazines?  Where are quotes from notable martial artists?  Where is '''anything''' that can't be found on his own website?--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-:# Let's refresh what just happened over the past few weeks. The [[Ashida Kim]] article goes up. Much screaming ensues. The article gets nominated for deletion, and is kept. In a fit of pique, Ashida Kim threatens Jimbo, and posts Jimbo's name, home address, and other personal details on his message board. And then, Jimbo comes along one week after the decision to keep is made, and nominates it for deletion again? Jimbo, I'm absolutely certain that you didn't do this because of Kim's threats, but honestly, this was the worst possible timing '''imaginable'''. Can you imagine what it would look like if we ended up deleting the article now? For the next six months, every POV warrior with an axe to grind would post your personal details in the hope of getting you to knuckle under and intercede on their behalf. --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 18:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-::I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but frankly, threats to me are completely irrelevant to keeping or deleting the article.  If we keep it because I'm mad at him and concerned that other POV warriors will stoop to his dishonorable tactics, we're not being NPOV.  All I ask is that we not do the opposite, either.  Let's consider the evidence: is he notable?  Do we have anything to say about him that doesn't come from his own silly website or that of 'bullshido' or a random flamewar?--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-* '''Weak Keep''' - Seems to be notable crackpot. --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]]([[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]) 18:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-:He might be notable, but where is he noted?--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-* '''Delete''', not notable [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-* '''keep''' please agree with ashenai that this person does seem notabel but if there is anything in the article that can not be verified we should remove it [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 18:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-* '''Weakest Possible Keep''' per [[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]]. The community that he's notable in is barely notable in itself(Martial Arts Loudmouths), but it just crosses the line. Make sure he stays the hell away from it, and add a few years upon his banishment every now and then for enjoyment. He shouldn't be allowed near human beings, let alone Wikipedia. This is the best we can do to make sure his legacy of disruption isn't continued. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 18:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' - Kim is a recognized character within the martial arts community.  At the least, the following is verifiable:
-:#Amazon.com shows "Ashida Kim" as the author of sixteen books. [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Ashida%20Kim]
-:#copyright.gov shows "Ashida Kim" as the copyright claimant on 14 works.
-:#google.com returns nearly 20k hits on "Ashida Kim". [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ashida+kim%22]
-:#"Ashida Kim" has been interviewed in the May 2003 "The Believer" magazine. [http://www.believermag.com/issues/200305/]
-:#"Ashida Kim" has been a topic of discussion and controversy on the internet since at least 1991. - [http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22ashida+kim%22&start=420&scoring=d]
-:#"Ashida Kim" has been written about in the Queenland Courier-Mail (July 22, 1993) (LexisNexis)
-:Of course, the article should be subjected to the standards of NPOV, which includes explictly citing any questionable assertions; but Kim is clearly a topic worthy of discussion -[[User:O^O|O^O]] 19:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-::This is evidence, of course, but not very persuasive to me.  To my knowledge "Believer Magazine" is not a real magazine, but just a random website.  I find no information about it in Wikipedia. :-) --[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' with comment and comparison.
-:Comment: by my standards, if no one book an author has published is notable enough for an article, the fact they've published is not in itself a claim to notability. Don't care if he has a thousand—I'd rank them right alongside C grade diet books from a look at his page.
-:Comparison: I nominated [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Salla this]] a while ago. A University prof convinced about government conspiracies regarding aliens. Anyhow, I'd suggest the same level of non-notable crack-pottery and similar arguments against. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 19:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Keep'''. Ashida Kim is for [[martial arts]] what [[Archimedes Plutonium]] is for science. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 19:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-::Archimedes Plutonium has been written about in ordinary publications.   To date, I have seen no evidence that Ashida Kim has achieved even that dubious honor.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Merge''' such minuscule information as may be verifiable (maybe an Amazon reference) to any suitable article, perhaps one on the branch of martial arts on which Ashida Kim has written.
-** To those who would vote keep, I say: are you reconciled to the fact that the article will be used to continue a flame war in which we have no interest?
-:::Do we have a meaningful choice? The only question can be whether the article is encyclopedic or not, ''not'' whether it would lead to a flamewar or not.
-:::Let me put it this way: would ''you'' be reconciled to the knowledge that Wikipedia's content depends on how tenaciously opponents of certain articles fight to have that content excised? Why haven't we deleted [[Scientology]] yet? Is it just that the Church of Scientology hasn't made enough threats yet? Should we tell them that, because I'm sure they could do better than Ashida Kim, if they wanted. This is a tiny battle and an unimportant article, but the principle is just as serious.
-:::I simply '''cannot''' acknowledge "would lead to flamewar" as any kind of justification for or against an article's existence. '''Yes''', I am reconciled to the fact that this will lead to animosity. I will do what I can to be a part of the solution, and not the problem. I will bend over backwards to accommodate Ashida Kim's input, as far as NPOV allows. I will happily swallow insults from him if it will lead to less turmoil and more consensus. ''But I will not allow him to compromise one letter of this, or any other, article with petty threats and flamewars.'' And I fervently hope that I am not speaking only for myself. --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 20:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-** To those who would vote delete, I say: Jimmy Wales makes a good case for moving on from the current way of writing about Ashida Kim, but a reference or two in an appropriate article on the broader subject, with [[Ashida Kim]] as a redirect, would probably be appropriate, and as a compromise may help us to forge a consensus with those whose instincts are to not delete. The redirect could be protected from vandalism, and attempt to reintroduce the flame war on other articles could be met by further protected redirects.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 20:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*** The [[Barbara Schwarz]] article is in a similar predicament as this one, in almost every aspect.  Should a protected redirect be issued for this individual as well?  [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] 20:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' as per [[User:O^O|O^O]] and [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] [[User:PMLF|PMLF]] 20:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Neutral'''. Since I am of two minds regarding the article's validity, I appreciate the fresh opinions of others on this one. As J.W. says, there is little that is independantly verifiable about Kim or his disputes with others (I have asked for secondary sources on several occasions). That pretty much limits us to reporting on his publishing career and his dispute with Bullshido - but on the dispute itself, not its content (since we haven't yet had 3rd party verifiable content provided). The only redeemable feature I can think of for such an article in the long run is that it may help someone using Wikipedia to investigate martial arts have more information in making a martial art instruction-related decision. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star]] 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*Second nomination (this time by the boss); second '''delete''' for reasons stated.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] made an excellent point in the last discussion, namely to mention this character in the larger scheme of martial arts charlatains and not in his own article.  The individual claiming to be Ashida Kim blanketed my e-mail with rants and raves.  I'd never heard of him prior to this carpetbombing of his and I had nothing to do with the info.  Any help I offered was blasted back in my face.  This isn't worth it IMO. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 20:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*:Wikipedia should not let itself be coerced into deleting an article. That said, I'm not quite sure this guy is sufficiently notable, so '''no vote'''. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 21:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' per Lucky 6.9, or '''Merge'''. I had no interaction with, nor did I even edit the article prior to the previous AFD. I wasn't email bombed, but my user page was vandalised. I think merging into [[McDojo]] or similar would be sufficent.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]] [[User talk:Sean Black|Jelly Baby?]] 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)