Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:07, 14 September 2009 editEnric Naval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,509 edits and the other google book hit that I neglected to list← Previous edit Revision as of 23:06, 14 September 2009 edit undoDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits →Ashida KimNext edit →
Line 64: Line 64:


:One ''big'' problem here is that there are no RS that allow us to cover the subject neutrally. Meaning that he is such a non-notable subject that only bullshido.net bothers to debunk him: there are no good sources saying if his ninjutsu is good or bad, or correct or wrong, or really based in ancient teachings or simply made up by the author. At most we could strech ] to include stuff like . If some future book or article about martial arts fraud bothers to cover him then maybe we can mention him inside the ] article. Honestly, wikipedia is not for dedicating badly-sourced shrines to very small internet culture icons, that's a a work for ] or for ]. --] (]) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC) :One ''big'' problem here is that there are no RS that allow us to cover the subject neutrally. Meaning that he is such a non-notable subject that only bullshido.net bothers to debunk him: there are no good sources saying if his ninjutsu is good or bad, or correct or wrong, or really based in ancient teachings or simply made up by the author. At most we could strech ] to include stuff like . If some future book or article about martial arts fraud bothers to cover him then maybe we can mention him inside the ] article. Honestly, wikipedia is not for dedicating badly-sourced shrines to very small internet culture icons, that's a a work for ] or for ]. --] (]) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' I generally think overly repeated nominations improper, regardless of the merits of the article. Nominate something 7 times, and if there's a 10% error rate, there's a better than even chance anything at all can be deleted. To say that we were wrong 6 times in a row, a extremely strong case must be made. Unless something new and critical is alleged, renominations like this should be rejected. In this case, I think a extremely strong case can indeed be made, and there has been something new and critical, the community's greater understanding of BLP than in the past. Looking at current and previous versions of the article, and at the sources, and the discussions, this is clearly a negative BLP with inadequate sourcing. I cannot imagine that if it had come to us fresh in this state now for the first time, that it would not be quickly deleted without much argument. I am generally very reluctant to give much weight to the subject's views with respect to notability, but in this case he is complaining not just of notability but fairness, and he seems to be correct. I am , frankly, amazed at what was said during some of the earllier afds, particularly the 1st one in 2005. Delete, and courtesy blank this and all previous AfD discussions. ''']''' (]) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:06, 14 September 2009

Ashida Kim

AfDs for this article:
Ashida Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural re-listing based on the outcome of this deletion review discussion. The article, as you can see at right has a rather sordid history at AfD. I ask that participants and closer set aside that history and judge the article on its current merits (or lack-thereof). This should be taken in context of how the policies and guidelines of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:BIO stand today. Based on the DRV discussion, WP:BLP and WP:RS seem to be the primary concerns. As this is a procedural re-listing, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Addendum: In the interest of full disclosure (for those who may not view the past AfDs or DRV), I should also note that the subject of the article has requested that this article be deleted at one point in the past. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Amazon.com shows "Ashida Kim" as the author of sixteen books. At least seven of these were published by Paladin Press, a "real" (although niche) publisher.
  2. copyright.gov shows "Ashida Kim" as the copyright claimant on 14 works.
  3. google.com returns nearly 20k hits on "Ashida Kim".
  4. "Ashida Kim" has been interviewed in the May 2003 "The Believer" magazine.
  5. "Ashida Kim" has been a topic of discussion and controversy on the internet since at least 1991. -
  6. "Ashida Kim" has been written about in the Queenland Courier-Mail (July 22, 1993) (LexisNexis)--Nate/c 08:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
That would make sense if Misplaced Pages was a directory, but it isn't. we need reliable non-trivial independent sources about the subject. An bibliography is not a source, neither is gossip on teh internets, neither are in-character interviews. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • cough My notification seems to have been lost in the post... You might have missed my 3 separate comments I suppose, also why AfD 4? Rather than say 1, 2 3, or 5? A miss understanding--Nate/c 08:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said above, I did not notify users who had already participated in this discussion (Ched and you). You can take a look at my recent contributions to see whom I have notified. I have notified those endorsing AfD #6, those wishing for AfD #6 to be overturned to keep or delete, those voting keep in AfD #6, and those voting delete in AfD #6. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I miss read you comment slightly and had assumed you did the notifications at the same time as your original comments --Nate/c 11:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per my argument in AfD #6.

    As with Stifle, I was asked to participate in this AfD, though I agree with Cunard that his action does not constitute canvassing in this instance, and I would certainly have participated without being asked.—S Marshall /Cont 08:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete due to lack of reliable non-trivial independent sources. I also believe it is right to delete WP:BLP articles of questionable notability when the subject requests it. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have notified all the participants of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination) of this AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortuantely, we have a BLP issue with someone that we can't actually verify exists. For all we know "Ashida Kim" isn't an author, but a series of authors. There is a definate lack of reliable sources about his life, since, again, we can't really verify who he (or maybe she for all we know) actually is. I don't even want to start on the alleged association with Count Dante. Bottom line, we have speculation, damn little in the way reliable sources and a little more than an echo when someone ask supporters to prove something. So I have to say this runs afoul of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V and probably others. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the subject's primary claim to fame is probably not as an author, he has in my opinion authored enough books of sufficient notability to make him notable because of that alone. Together with the article in the Believer, I believe the case for the subject's notability is established, and not even borderline. --Ashenai (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Based on the prolific authorship of novels/self help book that though are not the next great America novel, are nevertheless a niche market and notable within that market. As can be seen and verified on a Google Book search. Regarding the BLP issues, I am not sure how they apply to a Pen name. In that no one can point to a specific individual as the author, how do you apply BLP to a fictions character. This eliminates the concerns of a vast majority of the delete opinions. Thanks ShoesssS 10:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't. It simply tries to have your cake and eat it, too. This is either a real person, who authored books, or a "fiction character", who obviously, being fictitious, cannot have authored books. Pick having your cake or eating it. Trying to have both won't work. Uncle G (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL – Nothing wrong with that. But I beg the question again, how do you apply BLP to a pen name…..if the actual individual is not known? Thanks. ShoesssS 11:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Point of order: closing administrator is reminded that per the deletion policy, any argument put forth by a user who fails to use the phase "beg the question" in a sentence correctly is to be disregarded. HiDrNick! 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The Believer the Courier-Mail, and the Sun-Sentinel articles were debunked as good sources two years ago, in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd nomination) (q.v.), as the people trotting them out once again here well know. Those articles are simply two autobiographies (with all of the problems that entails) and a work that doesn't discuss this subject. The situation is the same then as now:

    This subject is a good example of why the "published author" test fails. There are simply no multiple non-trivial published works about this person, from reliable sources that are independent of this person, which can be used as a basis for writing a biographical article on this person.

    The PNC is not satisfied, and arguments that we should ignore notability, ignore the requirement for verifiability, or ignore the prohibition on original research, especially given that this is a biographical article where our policies must be strictly applied, don't hold water. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Err what is a PNC? Ahh yes it's your Personal Notability Criteria. I would also ask you to substantiate The 'debunking' as all your comments relate to your PNC thingy, while other editors accepted the believer as a valid source on AfD 2.---Nate/c 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I see your personal criteria still hasn't made the jump to becoming a Misplaced Pages policy and guideline over the years, but this still doesn't stop you from pretending it's generally accepted policy. Please don't do that. You may of course base your opinion on anything you wish, but to pretend that it represents any sort of consensus is extremely disingenuous. --Ashenai (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G and Niteshift36. The lack of reliable sources makes it impossible to write anything about this person at all. Disclosure: User:Cunard also asked me to participate, although I saw the DRV close and was planning to comment here anyway. Tim Song (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Guy. If there are no reliable non-trivial independent sources, then there's no reference for the article, and it should be deleted. First AfD in years and it's THIS one.  RasputinAXP  12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete because there is no material from sources that are both independent and reliable. This article does not meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP — and never can. *** Crotalus *** 13:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, unfortunately, per the lack of reliable sources that establish notability as noted by most above. If a pen name is directly connected to an author who is still alive (i.e. A. L. Singer being the ghostwriter of children's fiction author Peter Lerangis) still falls under the purview of BLP as we're still discussing about that person. MuZemike 13:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - I am finding it hard to believe that any article can go through 7 AfDs over 5 years and still not cite any reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject... and yet this article apparently has. Surely, if such sources existed, someone would have found them by now. As for the argument that the article should be kept because the subject has written lots of books... I find no indication that he meets the standards laid out at WP:AUTHOR. It is time to stop keeping this article based on hopes that it can be be improved. It can't. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per as above; Major WP:RS concerns. Eusebeus (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the RS concerns are legitimate, no one realistically disputes that it's possible to write a short, neutrally phrased article about this subject. The subject has extensive coverage, but almost entirely in highly "partisan" sources. The previous AFD nominator said at DRV that "there is no way for this article to ever get beyond a short stub without violating WP:V and WP:BLP"; since available RS sources demonstrate notability, but otherwise support only a short article, is not a recognized reason for deletion (and the suggestion goes against deletion policy). Keep a short article, expand only if additional RS information is identified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I dispute it. We've had years to do it and dismally failed to date, so we're not going to fix it without significant new sources. None have been provided. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep And improve. Ashida Kim may very well be a crackpot but he is most certainly a notable crackpot. I could care less whether he wants to be listed in Misplaced Pages.Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Nice piece of popular culture, but non-notable for wikipedia standards. Only one third party independient source, being the The Believer magazine, which unfortunately happens to be an uncritical interview to a popular culture item (it's only useful to source Ashida's opinion about himself). The US-based Black Belt magazine does not mention him anywhere (the only hits are paid advertisments for his books). It's very relevant that he is not covered in any serious source about ninjutsu or martial arts. I also searched in google books and only found two relevant hit apart from his own books: a passing mention as a one of the people who give the wrong idea of ninjutsu in popular media and an entry in two "suggested reading" lists in a "Magician's companion" book (pp. 45, 151). He doesn't seem to have influenced any ninjutsu school or made any significant contribution in the field, aka he has no historical significance and we don't need to keep him around to provide context for the actually notable subjects.
One big problem here is that there are no RS that allow us to cover the subject neutrally. Meaning that he is such a non-notable subject that only bullshido.net bothers to debunk him: there are no good sources saying if his ninjutsu is good or bad, or correct or wrong, or really based in ancient teachings or simply made up by the author. At most we could strech WP:FRINGE to include stuff like this book review. If some future book or article about martial arts fraud bothers to cover him then maybe we can mention him inside the Bullshido article. Honestly, wikipedia is not for dedicating badly-sourced shrines to very small internet culture icons, that's a a work for wikitruth or for Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I generally think overly repeated nominations improper, regardless of the merits of the article. Nominate something 7 times, and if there's a 10% error rate, there's a better than even chance anything at all can be deleted. To say that we were wrong 6 times in a row, a extremely strong case must be made. Unless something new and critical is alleged, renominations like this should be rejected. In this case, I think a extremely strong case can indeed be made, and there has been something new and critical, the community's greater understanding of BLP than in the past. Looking at current and previous versions of the article, and at the sources, and the discussions, this is clearly a negative BLP with inadequate sourcing. I cannot imagine that if it had come to us fresh in this state now for the first time, that it would not be quickly deleted without much argument. I am generally very reluctant to give much weight to the subject's views with respect to notability, but in this case he is complaining not just of notability but fairness, and he seems to be correct. I am , frankly, amazed at what was said during some of the earllier afds, particularly the 1st one in 2005. Delete, and courtesy blank this and all previous AfD discussions. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Categories: