Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Wong

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 of the debate was Delete User:Blintz has been warned about his apparent repeated personal attacks in this nomination discussion. Such personal attacks and vexatious discussion are not acceptable. Although "Man Who Survived Suicide via Jesus" and "Boy Pet" are no doubt interesting roles, sufficient notability has not, in my view, been established. --++Lar: t/c 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kai Wong

Self-aggrandizing, written by the article's subject, gossipy, inappropriate. Blintz 09:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable actor, uncredited in She Hate Me according to IMDB. When Googling, I don't see much of the hits related to the subject. --Terence Ong 09:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and Terence Ong. I can't find anything to justify and article. - Motor (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 13:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems to have a good number of "External links", and the article is more substantial than the slew of articles for porn stars that are allowed to stay (which makes Wikipedia a great porn star directory). Hong Qi Gong 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the external links are without merit, half of which seem to be copies of the Wikipedia entry anyway and were probably written by Mr. Wong himself. As for "Hong Qi Gong"'s vote for keeping, I'll point out that this stems from his clear pro-Asian bias—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blintz (talk • contribs).
• Keep - Mostly on principle. See Special:Contributions/Blintz, plus strange accusations of pro-Asian bias and some seeming hostility toward the article's subject makes the AfD questionable. --Wzhao553 06:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've cleaned up the "External links" section, and nice try, Blintz, but my only bias as far as this article is concerned is that plenty of other articles on porn stars are allowed to exist with much less information. Why don't you go list them for deletion instead? Hong Qi Gong 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• CommentBecause, Gong, I can only focus on one article at a time. Why? The obstructionism of people like you makes deleting even the most frivolous article such an ordeal that I have to neglect cleaning up the porn section until the one at hand is dealt with. By "bias" I was referring to the tendency of partisans of topics (for example, trans-sexual Malaysian deconstructionist authors) to jealously prevent even the most absurd articles under their "protection" to be deleted. Thus, I wasn't surprised that some Asian user defended the right of some other Asian to inflate his nonexistent reputation in a PUBLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. Unsurprisingly, the other user making strange accusations about "hostility" is named "Zhao." Blintz 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  You're not doing yourself a favor by making those remarks and getting into those kinds of fights. The nomination stands on its own merit and doesn't need flying accusations of xenophobia to proceed. ~ trialsanderrors 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  What ho, Trialsanderrors? I didn't make any accusation of xenophobia, nor did I get into any fight. I made a comment that "Gong" chose to take offense to. You'll notice that while the only accusation that I made concerned "pro-Asian bias" (a charge that, since not specifically attributable to "Gong, I addressed in a general way), you accused me of xenophobia, a far more serious matter. Don't be overzealous. Blintz 23:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Did I? Re-read my comment. The only thing I see is you making unsupported insinuations about editors' motives based on their screen names and (assumed) ethnicity. A clear WP:AGF and WP:NPA violation. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  My mistake regarding xenophobia. I meant to address your use of straw-man tactics: wildly claiming that I was making accusations of xenophobia. I'm not sure why you feel the need to delve into Wikipedia jurisprudence for this matter, but I doubt that my rather inocuous comments violate any rules. In fact, since you felt the need to imply that I wasn't acting in "good faith", consider the phrase "well-intentioned error." Even though you may have taken offense to my comments regarding ethnic partisanship, you should have noted that my efforts were well-intentioned - for the benefit of WP - so you should have assumed that I was acting in good faith. By assuming that I wasn't, you've violated the rule. And "no personal attacks"? I was merely mentioning that the user was tendentious. That's not an attack, nor is it particularly personal. Throw the book at someone else. Blintz 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  I wasn't implying you didn't act in good faith, I was implying you didn't assume good faith in others. A seemingly minor but ultimately crucial difference. ~ trialsanderrors 01:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Your last comment is irrelevant. The issue of good faith doesn't even enter here, since I made no comment regarding the quality of the intentions of the author of the article or his apparatchiks. In fact, I made no assumption on the subject whatsoever. Again, your citation of the rule wasn't necessary. Are you finished? Blintz 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Read the WP:NPA policy and how you fell afoul of it, especially the part about discrediting others' opinions based on their affiliation. End of communication. ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  If you'll review my comments, you'll probably be struck by the absence of any personal attacks. I did mention the tendency of partisans of topics to mechanically oppose the deletion of articles under their purviews, but I didn't make any personal attacks. In return, I've been labeled as the source of hostile accusations (you chose to raise the bar by falsely attributing the offensive charges of xenophobia to me) and insinuations. As for your charge that I attempted to discredit others, I only "point[ed] out" and "referr[ed] to the tendency" of the partisan activities mentioned above. This was for the benefit of the other readers to casually consider, not an attempt to discredit. In fact, your attempts to discredit me are far more thorough than any imagined attempts that I made. No need for any "end of communication": a period will do. Blintz 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The comment by Blintz is wholly inappropriate, but so is this article. "Lived opposite the gallery..."? Good Lord. ~ trialsanderrors 06:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete especially after seeing the IMDB entry featuring such esteemed roles as "Pedestrian" and "Partygoer" and his uncredited performance as "Man in Courtroom". None of the roles even have names. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and nn. Also, WP is not a free web server for resumes. Tychocat 08:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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.