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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:12, 4 October 2005

Ashida Kim

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. --Jimbo Wales 17:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non verifiable Jimbo Wales 17:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hall Monitor 18:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ashenai (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?--Jimbo Wales 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, O^O has already given a link to an interview with Ashida Kim in "Believer" magazine. Not sure how mainstream that is, and it's certainly not martial arts, but it's a lot more than nothing.

Furthermore, here's an independent review of one of Ashida Kim's books. Quite apart from everything else, I'd say he's a notable author. --Ashenai (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Ashenai (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?--Jimbo Wales 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, and I was myself dismayed at the number of votes that essentially boiled down to "keep because we'll never give in!" in the last AfD. But while Ashida Kim is not notable as a martial artist (perhaps the reason why he's not in any martial arts magazines), he certainly is notable as a crackpot, a neo-ninja, and a fraud (excuse the POV, please). I don't know how much verifiable information there is on him; I don't frequesnt Bullshido, and I'm not an expert on Ashida Kim at all. But the man has written, what, 16 books? Books that received wide circulation, and have had independent reviews written. That alone would, I think, be a strong argument for keeping the article.

I don't know what can be verified, and what can't. I'm quite ready to help rewrite the entire article as needed; Ashida Kim's a very colourful personality, and perhaps the flashy flamewars have skewed the article's focus. But I am convinced that he deserves an article, as a known author of ninja books, if nothing else. --Ashenai (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Seems to be notable crackpot. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He might be notable, but where is he noted?--Jimbo Wales 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable Fred Bauder 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Yuckfoo 18:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest Possible Keep per 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. Karmafist 18:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. [1]
copyright.gov shows "Ashida Kim" as the copyright claimant on 14 works.
google.com returns nearly 20k hits on "Ashida Kim". [2]
"Ashida Kim" has been interviewed in the May 2003 "The Believer" magazine. [3]
"Ashida Kim" has been a topic of discussion and controversy on the internet since at least 1991. - [4]
"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 -O^O 19:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. :-) --Jimbo Wales 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To correct myself, it seems that The Believer Magazine is an actual magazine. A point against my argument, *grumble*. :-) --Jimbo Wales 21:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 [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. Marskell 19:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ashida Kim is for martial arts what Archimedes Plutonium is for science. Pilatus 19:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Jimbo Wales 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Ashenai (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- 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. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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? Hall Monitor 20:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per O^O and Pilatus PMLF 20:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Fire Star 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Second nomination (this time by the boss); second delete for reasons stated. 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. - Lucky 6.9 20:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~~ N (t/c) 21:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I doubt my vote will count for much. To portray this as a feud between "Ashida Kim" and Bullshido is a gross misunderstanding of the situation. Bullshido's investigation into this individual was done simply to determine the facts involved, and the facts can easily be verified by anyone wishing to check the sources. I understood Wikipedia to be a repository for information, so I'm confused as to why it would seek to censor information simply because it is controversial. Is it possible that the thinly-veiled threats against certain people are being taken seriously? It's the only explanation I can fathom. --Phrost 21:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wikipedia should not kowtow to threats made against members... deleting this would be giving in IMO. I also think O^O has proven there is enough factual evidence to prove this guy deserves an article as a notable crackpot similar to sollog. ALKIVAR™ 21:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) Looks to me like a search on google mostly returns his own site, and a coupple of other sites with original content, as well as a few thousand who mostly (only looked at the first resultpages on google) look like they refer to, or quote from the first sites... If this character is notable, why isn't he mentioned on more sites with original content? Could perhaps be included in an article about martial artists if shortened? bjelleklang 21:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Martial arts is practiced by a large percentage of people, both in America and abroad. This guy has probably made more money off Ninjitsu than anyone else in the United States. For alot of people interested in beginning martial arts (especially Ninjitsu), this article should be kept as a resource to consider. Like I've said before, nothing in the article is untrue, so why delete it just because the subject has alot of free time to harass the admins here. -1BAD65 (preceding comment added by 141.131.3.22) --Ashenai (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote, 141.131.3.22! However, it appears that this is only your second edit here at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you have to be an established editor before we can count your vote. Please don't take offense; it's certainly nothing personal, and no one is accusing you of acting in bad faith; this is just a policy we have to prevent ballot-stuffing. Cheers, and if you have any good arguments regarding this issue, please keep sharing them with us! Nothing in policy against that. :) --Ashenai (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was very polite, and thus I'm sorry to say that it's wrong to start although it ends correctly. This isn't a vote per se, it's a discussion. Anyone, even new or anonymous editors can join the discussion. It's more correct to say that points of view expressed without supporting rational are likely to be given less weight by the closing admin if they are from new or unknown editors. Pedantic? Yes, I know. But democaracy, blah blah.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the Wikipedia deletion policy itself seems a little confused about whether it's a vote or not (search for "vote" on that page). In any case, thanks for the correction; if this isn't a vote, though, then the policy page needs an overhaul badly.

An example, straight from the policy page: "If you suspect a vote of being made by a sockpuppet or being otherwise invalid, mark it as such with a comment, and any pertinent links, and leave it there. The admin who reviews the discussion will investigate and decide whether or not to take that vote into account. By not removing any votes, we ensure that there can be no arguments over who removed what and why." [emphasis mine] --Ashenai (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no mainstream coverage, not encyclopedic. Pretty simple. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) everyone here please try to vote on this the same way we do other people on AfD - is he or anything he done notable? Let's look at what seems to be the situation
1. He's an author of some books, but the notability of any of those books seems questionable
  Really? I haven't actually seen anyone question the notability of his books. They have plenty of circulation, and I've already pointed to an independent review. Could you please explain why you don't feel they are notable, or could you point to someone saying his books aren't notable? --Ashenai (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, first off, if they really were truly notable they'd already have articles here (none are wikilinked from the article, anyway). Second, look at the VfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Year (film) - the books here are very similar in verifiability to that DVD in notability - and that even got a spot (although mostly unverifiable) on a local PBS broadcast, yet was still deleted. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The review you cite above says at least one of the books wasn't even a book. --Gmaxwell 23:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Web results - pretty much all of them point to his site, subsidiaries, or message boards. Still not notable
3. "Ashida Kim" has been a topic of discussion and controversy on the internet since at least 1991. Definately not notable yet
4. He's a crackpot claiming to have mystical powers. Fine - but the question is here can he really claim the amount of notariety we have for our threshold? The article does not seem to back this up with references, other than a link [5] - which means that basically he notariety consists of being debunked by bullshido.net which in and of itself does not merit notability.
5. As O^O mentions, he has mentions in "The Believer" and a daily austrialian newspaper/periodical (speaking of which, was it an article about him in the newspaper/periodical?) . This is definately the point that might merit his inclusion. However, it is no "slam dunk", and one would think that if he really has attained such notariety he would a lot more than this - so I'd argue that while he might need a mention somewhere, he doesn't merit his own article (maybe in "List of martial arts crackpots" :)).

I urge people to try to vote/comment sensably here the usual VfD way we always do - we've axed people here with much more "notability" then this guy - lets stick to our usual standards for notability. Of course, I will change my vote/opinion if proven wrong :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! As per the Church of Jimbo Christ and Latter Day Saints! Err, I mean as per nominator. --Phroziac^(talk) 22:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who locked the article. I personally have no clue on the subject at hand, except over what has happened recently. Due to this, I cannot place a vote. However, I will certainly not miss the article if it was axed. Zach (Sound Off) 23:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, Lucky 6.9, and many others above. I agree that this is not much more than a fight that's picked Wikipedia as its next venue, and we shouldn't take part in it. The subject as a whole is not that notable, nor is much of the pertinent information within the article. Overall, it's a garbled mess of NPOV statements. Ral315 W_S 23:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jimbo Wales (never thought I'd get to type that) and Lucky 6.9 (typed that a few times). Wish I'd had home Internet during the previous AfD so I could have voted delete on that too. Lord Bob 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 :'''Comment''' I was the one who locked the article. I personally have no clue on the subject at hand, except over what has happened recently. Due to this, I cannot place a vote. However, I will certainly not miss the article if it was axed. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * '''Delete''' per nominator, Lucky 6.9, and many others above.  I agree that this is not much more than a fight that's picked Wikipedia as its next venue, and we shouldn't take part in it.  The subject as a whole is not that notable, nor is much of the pertinent information within the article.  Overall, it's a garbled mess of NPOV statements.  <font color="red">[[User:Ral315|Ral]]</font><font color="green">[[User talk:Ral315|315]]</font> <font color="blue">[[WP:SIGN|W<sub>S</sub>]]</font> 23:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' as per [[User:Jimbo_Wales|Jimbo Wales]] (never thought I'd get to type that) and [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] (typed that a few times). Wish I'd had home Internet during the previous AfD so I could have voted delete on that too. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)