Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (4th nomination): Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:08, 13 December 2008 editUncle G (talk \| contribs)Administrators52,482 edits On notability← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:42, 13 December 2008 edit undoJJL (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users8,749 edits →Ashida Kim: responseNext edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:
	**'''Comment''' I understand the concern. But Ashida Kim the person (Chris Hunter? Radford Davis?) isn't the big picture here. 'Ashida Kim' is widely used shorthand for a martial arts fraud. Do a Google image search on "Ashida Kim" and go through a few pages. It's incredible how many people are using the phrase "Ashida Kim" in a variety of situations, many of which are unrelated to the martial arts or by people who are not martial artists but who know the name. It's a highly notable martial arts meme and to a lesser extent an Internet meme. It also relates to the ] comic book ads phenomenon--the Ashida Kim books followed this tradition--and the mock ninja stuff (e.g. ]). His books are still widely available in bookstores and in print in numerous languages, including Portuguese and Polish and German, Italian, and Spanish . He even has a book(s) referenced in other books , , . In fact, look at for numerous citations (editorial comment: this is quite sad). Unfortunately the martial arts mags. don't have much online to search, but what I can say as a martial artist is that this name crops up very frequently. The number of ghits (e.g. ) for the name is evidence of its wider impact. ] (]) 16:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)		**'''Comment''' I understand the concern. But Ashida Kim the person (Chris Hunter? Radford Davis?) isn't the big picture here. 'Ashida Kim' is widely used shorthand for a martial arts fraud. Do a Google image search on "Ashida Kim" and go through a few pages. It's incredible how many people are using the phrase "Ashida Kim" in a variety of situations, many of which are unrelated to the martial arts or by people who are not martial artists but who know the name. It's a highly notable martial arts meme and to a lesser extent an Internet meme. It also relates to the ] comic book ads phenomenon--the Ashida Kim books followed this tradition--and the mock ninja stuff (e.g. ]). His books are still widely available in bookstores and in print in numerous languages, including Portuguese and Polish and German, Italian, and Spanish . He even has a book(s) referenced in other books , , . In fact, look at for numerous citations (editorial comment: this is quite sad). Unfortunately the martial arts mags. don't have much online to search, but what I can say as a martial artist is that this name crops up very frequently. The number of ghits (e.g. ) for the name is evidence of its wider impact. ] (]) 16:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
	***… but is ''not'' evidence that this subject satisfies the Primary Notability Criterion. Books written by the subject don't count. People using the subject's name don't count. What counts is the existence of multiple in-depth published works by independent and identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy — in other words the ]. The question of whether this subject satisfies the PNC has been asked for over three years now, and ''in all that time'', not a single source has been cited that actually demonstrates it to be satisfied. ] (]) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)		***… but is ''not'' evidence that this subject satisfies the Primary Notability Criterion. Books written by the subject don't count. People using the subject's name don't count. What counts is the existence of multiple in-depth published works by independent and identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy — in other words the ]. The question of whether this subject satisfies the PNC has been asked for over three years now, and ''in all that time'', not a single source has been cited that actually demonstrates it to be satisfied. ] (]) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
			****'''Comment''' it's quaint that you have your own ]. Per the notability essay at ], I feel he satisfies ''2. Founder of notable style'' (his own well-known brand of ninjutsu) and ''5. Author of significant book(s) on their style'' as mentioned above. Incidentally, there are two entire books on Ashida Kim that purport to be from disinterested parties (but which are quite similar to one another and suspected of having been written by Ashida Kim or a compatriot): , . Here are a few more references that indicate that his works are cited and that he is referred to as an authority on ninjutsu: , , , , ; the first two of these books are highly endorsed. He's a well-published, frequently cited, high-ranking martial artist who has attracted much attention for his frequent Black Belt and other magazine ads (e.g. ), outrageous statements, prominent $10k challenge, and so on. ] (]) 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:42, 13 December 2008

Ashida Kim

AfDs for this article:

Like in the previous AFDs, the problem with the article is that there is little, if any, mainstream coverage of allegations that he is a bullshidoka, and only a marginal amount of mainstream coverage of Kim himself.

I'm re-nominating the article because there were some "keep but cleanup" !votes in previous AfDs. There has been plenty of time for the article to be improved, but it hasn't been, and as far as I can tell, there's no way for this article to become anything more than a perma-stub while maintaining verifiability.

I am not in favor of a merge to Bullshido.net#Ashida_Kim either. Andjam (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - notable and published author. his notability is just unquestionable. the fact that he pretends to be a ninja is just awesome. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can you expand on this beyond WP:ILIKEIT please? Andjam (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  - On the same logic I assume this isn't a re-nom based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Going by your attmpt to have the article speedied in bad faith. --Nate 14 81 11:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment Response: sorry, i think you misunderstood. i don't like this article one bit, so i don't know why you'd invoke WP:ILIKEIT (which is an essay, not policy). on the contrary, i think this article needs to be majorly rewritten so it can become a much better article. that doesn't mean it should be deleted, though, because articles aren't deleted for not reaching their potential. the actual wikipolicy states (not an essay) "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability." since ashida kim's notability is verifiable (he's written many books), this article is worthy of keeping. whether i like his books or not is irrelevant. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Being the author of many books is not what marks one as notable. Being the subject of many books would be, though. You have not demonstrated notability. Please read Misplaced Pages:Notability to learn what that actually means, and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability to learn what that actually means, too. Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This individual is notable. I would say that much cannot be argued. Notable for being legitimate or notable for being a fraud... Still notable. Doesn't mean the article should remain. User5802 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are arguing that this person is famous, not that xe is notable. Notability is not fame nor importance. Please address the subject of notability. Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - notable individual. Attempts have been made at cleanup, but have been hampered by policy. Thedarxide (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cleanup should bring an article like this into line with policy. Are you saying that it is impossible to write a verifiable, neutral article, free from original research, on this subject? That's an argument for deletion, not keeping, no matter what boldfaced word it is prefixed by. Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  - I think he means that as it's a BLP we can't use the court documents found by from the bullshido articels, hence no furthre info on the name etc. --Nate1481 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    - That sounds like the answer to my question is "Yes, it's impossible to write because we don't have any sources that we can rely upon and use." and that therefore the article should be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep notable (for all the wrong reasons) in the martial arts world, and (pseudonymous) author of numerous books. Walk into a B&N or Borders and you'll almost surely find a few books by him on the shelves. He's a significant part of the "ninja craze" of the 70s/80s and still a point of discussion among martial artists (plug the name into a randomly chosen m.a. web forum), and used as a code word for 'martial arts fraud'. JJL (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Being the author of many books is not what marks one as notable. Being the subject of many books would be, though. You have not demonstrated notability. Please read Misplaced Pages:Notability to learn what that actually means, and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability to learn what that actually means, too. It has now been over three years since Jimbo asked whether the PNC is satisfied, and 18 months since I made the case that it isn't. No sources have come to light demonstrating that the PNC is satisfed in all that time. Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Obviously. Uncle G made the case for deletion in nom#3 and that remains compelling. Why is this still around? Eusebeus (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
weak delete, almost full delete I'm really not a fan of multiple AfDs when previous ones have failed. But there's really close to nothing about Kim in reliable sources. We have one source that is good which is the article in The Believer. If we had a second article I'd be able to change that stance. But without it there's not much we can do. Oh, and a Misplaced Pages article citing itself? Not so hot. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- ON the WP cite it simply notes that the article exists, so functions as a primary source. You can cite wikipedia if your discussing wikipedia, as an alternative we can link the internet archive for it. --Nate 14 81 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- See my analysis of that source and the use of Misplaced Pages as a source back in the May 2007 AFD discussion. It's an autobiography, since it's essentially nothing more than the subject talking about xyrself, and clearly thus both not independent nor reliable. Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Notable author, sourcing is not great however the court documents used elsewhere are not usable on a BLP, and the article has been cleaned up diff. The alternate was stubbify NOT delete as the debate agreed he was notable but hard to source well enought for a BLP. He is widely disscuss in MA forums, reliably sourcing this is tricky. Also per the last 3 AfD's including the one started by Jimbo in responce to the threats the article disscuses, I'm till not sure why the acadamy seciton went rather than being cleaned up.--Nate1481 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion did not agree that xe is notable. Indeed, the impossibility of sourcing is demonstration that xe is not notable, because PNC is not satisfied. However famous this person may be in a particular section of society, it must be shown that xe, xyr life, and xyr works, have been properly documented. Notability must be demonstrated, not fame. You have yet to demonstrate it, even after participating in the last AFD discussion where the question of notability, and satisfying the PNC, was put explicitly. You have, in 18 months, come up with zero sources to show that the PNC is satisfied, and even acknowledge that there are no sources. We don't get to keep things because we personally think that they are notable, even though the PNC is not satisified because there are no sources to be had. Notability is not your personal subjective judgement. It's satisfying the criterion. Demonstrate that. Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep per JJL --Scb steve (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- JJL hasn't actually made a case that holds any water at all with respect to our article policies and guidlines, so neither, by extension, have you. For there to be a biographical article about a person, we need mutiple reliable and independent sources that document that person's life and works in depth. In other words, the PNC needs to be satisfied. Jimbo asked whether it was satisfied in October 2005, and the question went unanswered. I showed that no sources yet found (after I went looking for them myself) satisfied the PNC in May 2007. No further source has been found since. This article has zero independent in-depth reliable sources to be created from, and no amount of "strong keep"s will change that. Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment almost all of the keep !voters in this AfD are involved in the martial arts (see my analysis on the AfD's talk page). I know that sounds like a good thing, but such people may have strong opinions about bullshidokas. 13:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andjam (talk • contribs)
- So sounding like a good thing, but not being because or generalised assumptions youmake about all members of Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by martial art? If all martial artist do then how so they exist? Yes I do, and some of the others hear do to, but that is usually as we spend large chunks of time cleaning up the latest spam & pov on martial arts related articles posted by those doing puff pieces (at best). This article is not how it would be if those views were allowed free reign (try here it is neutral, sating only facts & not making any direct mention of some of the issues that have made kim so contentious, only noting people he publishd threats to. Yes I know this is a rant but I am irritated by Andjam posting the comment above seemingly in a attempt to discredit other editors views. --Nate 14 81 14:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I understand the concern. But Ashida Kim the person (Chris Hunter? Radford Davis?) isn't the big picture here. 'Ashida Kim' is widely used shorthand for a martial arts fraud. Do a Google image search on "Ashida Kim" and go through a few pages. It's incredible how many people are using the phrase "Ashida Kim" in a variety of situations, many of which are unrelated to the martial arts or by people who are not martial artists but who know the name. It's a highly notable martial arts meme and to a lesser extent an Internet meme. It also relates to the Count Dante comic book ads phenomenon--the Ashida Kim books followed this tradition--and the mock ninja stuff (e.g. Real Ultimate Power). His books are still widely available in bookstores and in print in numerous languages, including Portuguese and Polish and German, Italian, and Spanish . He even has a book(s) referenced in other books , , . In fact, look at for numerous citations (editorial comment: this is quite sad). Unfortunately the martial arts mags. don't have much online to search, but what I can say as a martial artist is that this name crops up very frequently. The number of ghits (e.g. ) for the name is evidence of its wider impact. JJL (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  - … but is not evidence that this subject satisfies the Primary Notability Criterion. Books written by the subject don't count. People using the subject's name don't count. What counts is the existence of multiple in-depth published works by independent and identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy — in other words the Primary Notability Criterion. The question of whether this subject satisfies the PNC has been asked for over three years now, and in all that time, not a single source has been cited that actually demonstrates it to be satisfied. Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment it's quaint that you have your own Personal Notability Criterion. Per the notability essay at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Martial_artists, I feel he satisfies 2. Founder of notable style (his own well-known brand of ninjutsu) and 5. Author of significant book(s) on their style as mentioned above. Incidentally, there are two entire books on Ashida Kim that purport to be from disinterested parties (but which are quite similar to one another and suspected of having been written by Ashida Kim or a compatriot): , . Here are a few more references that indicate that his works are cited and that he is referred to as an authority on ninjutsu: , , , , ; the first two of these books are highly endorsed. He's a well-published, frequently cited, high-ranking martial artist who has attracted much attention for his frequent Black Belt and other magazine ads (e.g. ), outrageous statements, prominent $10k challenge, and so on. JJL (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories: