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

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Even giving extra weight to Jimbo's nomination, this AFD still has >66% keep votes, which is at best a consensus to keep and at worst no consensus. Either way, this article is kept. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ashida Kim 1.1 Vote summary discussion 1.2 Vote summary 1.3 Closing the AfD

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)

• Non verifiable 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. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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)

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)

1. 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)

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)

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)

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

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

Point accepted. Unless notabilty verified, Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable 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 Yuckfoo 18:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep - Kim is a recognized character within the martial arts community. At the least, the following is verifiable:

1. Amazon.com shows "Ashida Kim" as the author of sixteen books. [1] 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". [2]
4. "Ashida Kim" has been interviewed in the May 2003 "The Believer" magazine. [3]
5. "Ashida Kim" has been a topic of discussion and controversy on the internet since at least 1991. - [4]
6. "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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• Keep. Ashida Kim is for martial arts what Archimedes Plutonium is for science. 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.--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. --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. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 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? Hall Monitor 20:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per O^O and Pilatus 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. --Fire Star 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Had the Anon merely contributed something like "Keep, per Ashenai", I would expect that this contribution would be ignored because all it added to the process was one vote -- & there's no way that it could be proven that it wasn't a sockpuppet. However, the Anon added her/his own two cents to the conversation, so I would expect the Admin closing this discussion is free to make her/his own judgement. -- llywrch 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, no mainstream coverage, not encyclopedic. Pretty simple. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• 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)

     Well, first off, if they really were truly notable they'd already have articles here (none are wikilinked from the article, anyway).

     I don't really like that argument for non-notability... by that logic, we could just speedy any new article on a book that was published before the year 2000. :) --Ashenai (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

     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)

     Can't really comment; I wasn't part of the AfD, and the article is gone now. --Ashenai (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

     The review you cite above says at least one of the books wasn't even a book. --Gmaxwell 23:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

     Well, it was a badly-made... pamphlet, I guess. I don't think proper binding techniques should feature in arguments for or against a book's notability. The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect is an Internet-only novel, and still gets an article. --Ashenai (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  2. Web results - pretty much all of them point to his site, subsidiaries, or message boards. Still not notable

     He has been mentioned in several news papers, including in the Brisbane Australia COURIER-MAIL, July 22, 1993 Thursday; and in the January 5, 2002 Saturday Broward Metro Edition of the Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL). The articles are available to anyone with access to a Nexis news/media search engine. He is clearly a notable figure within the martial arts community. I find it odd that many who are not a part of this community seem to be expressing a contrary opinion without much justification for doing so. He's been a member of the Martial Arts community since the late 60's, when it was fairly small in the English speaking world. --Phrost 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  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)

1. 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • Changing my vote to keep. You know what? The keepers sold me on it. Plus, I gotta admit that I do feel uneasy voting delete on something relisted after a week, even if it was relisted by Jimbo. Lord Bob 14:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete. He may be a megatroll, but he's not really notable and I see no reason to care about him. He's notoriously incompetent, by starting all this mentioning of how he wants it down because it mentions his private info (not really... just his real name), and by his bitching and moaning that starts a ruckus and now we all know his real name, a very dumb way to carry on things. Had he not started this all, I doubt anyone would know his real name. Its Jimbo's will that this be deleted, so let it be deleted. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete — per Jimbo. As Jimbo pointed out on the mailing list, publishing a book or establishing yourself in an internet site is not a (or very weak) claim to notability. I could publish a book; my next door neighbor could publish a book. Does that mean we're notable? No. As such, delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's why we're arguing about whether they're notable books or not. They have had significant circulation; why would you say they are not notable? Arguments against, so far, were "if they really were truly notable they'd already have articles here", "the books here are very similar in verifiability to [a DVD film that was deleted]", and "at least one of the books wasn't even a book" (based, I assume, on its binding). I just don't find any of those three arguments very convincing. The argument for is simply that the books have achieved considerable circulation, which, to me, seems enough. But I'm very willing to consider further arguments against, of course. --Ashenai (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Take this quote from Jimbo on the mailing list: And if he _is_ a popular author, we ought to be able to find some evidence of it. (Finding isbn numbers in amazon for admittedly self-published books is not sufficient for me personally. There's nothing wrong with self-publishing, but if I'm interested in notability, I'd want some sort of external verification.) Do we have any proof or evidence that the books are notable? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The following info is courtesy of Kenpo Tom: Ashida Kim is not self published. His books were originally on Paladin Press and now on Citadel Press Books published by Kensington Publisihng Corp. 850 Third Ave. New York, NY. 10022 (1 800 221 2647) --Ashenai (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, according to one of the books for sale on this page, at least one of his books has made it to a third printing. Granted, we don't know the size of the print runs, but that seems to be some evidence for its popularity.

--Ashenai (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You can regularly find books by him at Borders and other major bookstores. --Phrost 01:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, please don't renominate articles for AfD so quickly after there previous one just because you don't like the result, even if you do happen to be Jimbo. --fvw* 23:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep Seems to be vaugely notible and definetly verifable.Geni 23:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A notable ninja. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per Nom which is u know who --JAranda | yeah 23:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep sorry, Jimbo: notable, verifiable ➥the Epopt 00:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- As per O^O. Ben D. 01:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as this person is without a doubt notable within the field of martial arts. He has been featured in Believer magazine, the Queenland Courier-Mail (1993), Brisbane Australia COURIER-MAIL (1993), the Broward Metro Edition of the Sun-Sentinel (2002), and has had six books published by Paladin Press and Kensington Publishing Co. One of his books, Secrets of the Ninja (ISBN 0806508663), has been so successful that they made a third printing. The original claim made by User:Jimbo Wales that this figure is "non verifiable" is flat out wrong. If we are going to delete based upon idiocy, controversy, flame wars, or vandalism, then the first article on the chopping block should be George W. Bush, not this one. [edit] 01:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- As stated before, theres enough information to back up the fact of what he has claimed in the past, and that he still holds claims to now.--Atoramos* 23:25, 4 October 2005
• Strong keep. Being the focus of net flame wars makes you "notable" enough for an encyclopaedia that covers "all human knowledge". May I remind the nominator that renominating articles that have passed AfD recently tends to cause ill will and gives contributors the idea that the nominator simply wants to disregard the views expressed the first time round. Grace Note 01:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Being the focus of net flame wars makes you "notable" enough for an encyclopaedia that covers "all human knowledge"". No it doesn't. Honestly, no it doesn't. A net flame war? That's a step above my breakfast this morning. Marskell 02:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In your view. I daresay you're not all that interested in Japanese pottery either. Perhaps we should expel it too. It never ceases to tickle me to see anti-interwebnet snobbery on an artefact of said interwebnet. -- Grace Note
• keep Is the article relevant? Yes. Are facts verifiable? Yes. --Trypsin 02:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Phrost tells us "You can regularly find books by him at Borders and other major bookstores". If I see a book in a major bookstore, I want to be able to look its author up in wikipedia. Kappa 02:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  I think the most useful criterion I've yet seen for what an article should be is the one that says "will the article match what the reader expects if he or she looks up the title?". The very least we should be aiming for -- the very least not all, I note -- is that we have an article for anything or anyone that might be of interest to our readership. -- Grace Note

• Keep, If there's such a large debate over somebody, he's probably notable. (preceding comment added by 69.209.185.209)
  • Thank you for your vote, 69.209.185.209! However, it appears that this is only your first 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. :) --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

* Strong keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Abstain -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, as per most of the keep votes already. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep -- We have a whole category for Internet Personalities, and entries on such luminaries as Alex Chiu, and I believe that Kim certainly qualifies for an entry. -- IceWeasel
• Comment, round two. Ashida's website and dojopress were taken offline by a webhost called "vDesk." Because of all of that, I removed all external links from the article. I am not sure how it will affect this vote, but I still will not place a vote. Zach (Sound Off) 07:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep -- It needs a going over for POVness and more link verification, but it's not necessary to delete it. the pineapple 08:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I found a bunch of books over on Amazon. Looking at the various reviews thereon, he's managed to stir up a whole load of people for and against. This is likely to be the kind of guy we would want people to consult us on, if only to see whether or not he actually exists, never mind whether he's a crackpot or not. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notability appears to have been established. Demiurge 12:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- as above, notability established and it seems wrong to nominate an article so quickly after the first round of voting. Some POV editing might be an idea, however. -- Mewcenary 13:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Although the writing style has a non-neutral slant, I see no reason why it contains material warranting deletion Theodore Therone
• Keep -- the subject is notable within its field, and the current article is certainly verifiable and informative, if brief, although the wording may need some work wrt the POV Graham 14:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; notability seems to have been established now, though the article certainly needs some work on POV. Loganberry (Talk) 14:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jimbo. Jimbo says something is unverifiable, I believe Jimbo. Xoloz 15:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• 3rd commemt, unlocked the article and added the book information in. I still do not know if any of Ashida's websites have been put back online or know why they were taken down. Zach (Sound Off) 17:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The AshidaKim.com website apparently ran out of bandwidth as a result of the discussion this VfD has spawned on a few websites and people visiting it to find out more information on Ashida Kim. --Phrost 19:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...about how long would until the site is restored? BTW, No vote on the deletion. Zach (Sound Off) 23:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Merge. Not notable other than the attention he is receiving due to internet trolling. GeeCee 19:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (Obviously) Notability is clear, I didn't hear about this from "trolling", and having read these arguments, I vote it should stay (I made an account 5 minutes ago, but having edited wiki for some time, I'll vote even if it doesn't count) JAS 19:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It won't, but if you use your account for future edits it will next time. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I respect Jimbo, but don't necessarily agree 100% with him. We should apply the same criteria to Ashida Kim as anyone else, and the published books, the wealth of Internet interest and opinion about this guy, etc., clearly establish him as notable and a public figure. I don't even think it's a close call. And, this was all hashed out recently in an AfD, and it's not like that AfD didn't bring out all the arguments pro and con, so I can't see bringing it up again mere days/weeks later. If there are POV problems with the article, they can & should be fixed in the time-honored manner. I hate to say it, but this new AfD seems more based on Wikipedia politics than on actual merit of the article's existence. (For the record, I have no particular interest in martial arts, nor have I edited the article in question.) MCB 22:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If there are political motivations behind this nomination for deletion, we should all be ashamed. Agree with MCB that this is not a close call, this is a clear and obvious keep, no questions asked. Silensor 22:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the AfD this time was politically motivated. The soi-disant "ninja master" who calls himself Ashida Kim is an incredibly tedious crank, and someone who hasn't been in the martial arts business for a long time can be excused IMO for not believing that a real person could bald facedly make such outrageous claims for themselves with such profuse and blindly erratic self-puffery. --Fire Star 22:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Just because the truth seems to be particularly unfavorable towards Mr. "Kim" doesn't mean we should delete the article because he whines about it. If he can contest any of the article's veracity and back up his claims with proof then let him do so. Plus, I think it would set a terrible precedent for Wikipedia to delete an article under a hailstorm of criticism. Additionally, he does own his own business and is proven to be the author of many books and at the very least appears on his website ; keep in mind that we have articles for Shmorky, Lowtax, Fragmaster and other internet personalities as well. WellsLaRivière 23:07, 5 October 2005
• Strong Keep Voted on negative precedent potential. First, to take away possibly valuable information regarding internet personalities who are significant to large circles (Lowtax, Shmorky, Fragmaster etc. Second, to allow for complaints from the subjects of fact-based criticism to destroy articles. --Ashwinr
• Strong Keep I don't see any reason to remove this article. He's pretty definitively a personality of sufficient note to have an article and if nothing else the article should stay on the basis of truth. Wikipedia keeps to NPOV to show the unbiased truth, and if the unbiased truth is that somebody is a liar who steals people's money via confidence games, then removing a page showing evidence of his fraudulent claims would be de facto support. --Talain 00:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jimbo. Besides, trolls are not inherently notable, in my opinion. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I cannot believe there is another AfD already. Shouldn't the original vote result last at least, I don't know, a month?! Keep because I think without all of Ashida Kim's whining and vandalism, this would not be up for a vote, and that's not a good enough reason. Turnstep 02:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems more than notable enough. Not only that but he appears to be a topic of much discussion and fairly well known. Casual encyclopedia readers would find a conspicuous absence when they went to look up the article on him that they would know should be there. silsor 02:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --70.95.118.44 09:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons already well stated above by O^O and others. That this article should come up for deletion again so soon is not appropriate. Naar 13:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ashida Kim books are very popular. Of the 8 or so books still in print, three of them are available at Borders here in Vegas. I don't mean borders.com, I mean the actual store. If you're in there looking for books about Ninja, chance are, his name is on it.Kenpo Tom 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't really like going against our Glorious Leader on this, but the subject does seem to have achieved a degree of notability -- in a fairly specialized community, granted, but that is no bar to inclusion. His books (whether self-published or not; the ownership of the publishing company hasn't really been established here) are, by statement of several editors, available widely in both online and "real-world" book stores (I'll take their word for it; I haven't gone looking for them myself). Thus, the only "reason" for deletion would be to go along with the strident demands of the subject, which is not a precedent we should set. *Dan T.* 15:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks like notable.  Grue  18:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, to me it seems notable enough. Notorious enough, I mean. Though, another alternative would be to merge it to somewhere. Mentioned somewhere. That's my point. Give me coffee or give me death! I better sign and submit this before I flip out and kill people. --Wwwwolf 23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The subject has written a humber of books on Ninjitsu and has at least managed to get them listed in Amazon, tho none of them are paticularly well selling. Then again, given the low user rating his books uniformly have there, it's not surprising. Caerwine 04:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• No vote, and Objection. This is a completely improper and specious re-listing for AfD. If Jimbo wishes to delete this article, he should simply do so as a part of his prerogative. Our time is being wasted with a 2nd AfD following so closely on the heels of another where there was overwhelming consensus to keep. Like many others above, I am also concerned by the appearance of Jimbo's actions here. Ashida Kim is an Internet troll and a Wikipedia vandal, and as with John Byrne, Jimbo is rewarding the vandals for their persistent vandalism. The truth of the matter is, if we were to start applying these new uber-strict Jimbo-dictated rules of verifiability to every article on Wikipedia, we would very quickly go down from 700,000 plus articles to about 700, the approximate number of FAs we have. You can't have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and then suggest that every fact needs to be recorded in a peer-reviewed journal edited by Nobel prize winners. The notability of Ashida Kim simply isn't in question: he gets 18,800 google hits and he is the author of numerous books on the martial arts. If he wasn't a Wikipedia trouble-maker, his verifiability would never be in question, but because he starts blanking his own article and attacking user pages, suddenly we need to prove his very existence with the most unreasonable of standards for the kind of subject he is. Func( t, c, @, ) 14:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep!! (preceding comment by 67.94.68.122) --Ashenai (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

• Keep Claimed author of published books, and notable in Polk county as well as in other circles that are large enough to warrant an article in wikipedia Trödel|talk 22:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote summary discussion

Since this AfD has gotten a lot of interest, some from new users, I'd like to help the admin(s) eventually making the decision. So I've compiled the following list of each voter's number of contributions at the time of voting, and the time of their first edit to Wikipedia. The list is sorted by number of contributions, highest first.

This list isn't meant to demonstrate anything, and admins are free to use or ignore the information in it, as they like. I just thought it would be useful. :)

Everyone, please continue voting above this section! You can add yourself to the list if you like, but it isn't necessary; I'll be coming along regularly to update it. --Ashenai (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

While I understand the intent and respect the effort it must have taken, I'd like to state again that this is not a vote.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In this case, I took 'vote' in its common WikiVernaculear term to mean "the expression of an opinion in a consensus-seeking context." I think this was a fairly light breach of strict termonological correctness but nothing really heinous. Lord Bob 01:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• My concern is that this is reductionist. This makes User:Ring Foo's "Delete, crap" count exatcly the same as User:Fing Roo's "Keep, as per seven published works, here are the ISBN's...". Or maybe I should just get off my high horse and kill the bug up my bum, eh? ^_^
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I find that a reasonable concern, yeah, and there's no doubt it's not a good word, but I've learned to live with it just because it's so immediately what comes to mind. Anybody who's been here for very long has heard this very discussion about nine trillion times anyway. :P Lord Bob 01:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Meh. Let's not argue about the nomenclature, that never gets anyone anywhere. Substitute "discussing" for "voting" in my original message, above; it changes nothing.
    • This is reductionist; I collated some stats that I think may be useful. I'd certainly advise anyone against only looking at the lists, and ignoring the debate. Again, I just provided data. If the admin closing this debate finds any of this data useful, great! If not, he or she is free to ignore it. But for instance, if the admin sees an argument from, say, me, and wants to know how much experience I have with Wikipedia, I've made the information easier to find. That's really all I wanted to do. :) --Ashenai (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[Regarding Marksell incorrectly being given 663 edits] Actually 2100+ edits. If mine is wrong I don't know about the others; don't mean to disparage the work but I think this is a bad idea.

• Mine was fine, maybe a one off? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• As long as the vote counts for relatively new users are correct, it doesn't matter. Kappa 00:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wha?! If you look at yours and find it wrong you naturally distrust the others. Of course it matters. I'd love to say I'm going to check all of these myself but it's late on my end so I have to assume it was done properly. It wasn't done properly on mine so I can't assume that!
  • In general what's the implication: that 10 000 matters more than 1000? One hundred matters more than one but two orders of magnitude beyond that I think it irrelevant. List the users who have under a dozen, particularly those who have only voted on this (and discount them when keeping/deleting) and save yourself the rest of work . Marskell 00:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies for the error; it's been fixed. I accidentally used the "distinct pages edited" count for you instead of the "total edits" stat. I double-checked everyone, and found that I made the same mistake for Tony Sidaway and Nickptar; both are now fixed. Everyone else seems fine, and I can guarantee the correctness of the numbers to +/- 5%, at worst. :)
    • As to its implication: like I said above, I am not trying to imply anything. I listed what I believed to be pertinent stats. What to infer (if anything) from these stats is up to the admin(s). --Ashenai (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry to be pedantic. It really isn't a big deal and your work is helpful. Marskell 23:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you, and the pedantism is appreciated. If I'm going to be listing stats, there's no excuse for doing it half-assed. :) --Ashenai (talk)

Vote summary

Keep:

1. Kappa, 15974 edits, user since 2004-09-15
2. Fvw, 15168 edits, user since 2003-08-28
3. Merovingian, 12421 edits, user since 2003-11-09 (speedy keep)
4. Caerwine, 10105 edits, user since 2005-07-23 (weak keep)
5. The Epopt, 9859 edits, user since 2001-10-09
6. Phil_Boswell, 8823 edits, user since 2003-10-02
7. Silsor, 7266 edits, user since 2003-10-16
8. Alkivar, 5658 edits, user since 2004-06-13
9. Geni, 5615 edits, user since 2004-03-30
10. Ryan Delaney, 5266 edits, user since 2004-08-26
11. Loganberry, 3896 edits, user since 2004-07-01
12. Dtobias, 3237 edits, user since 2004-12-18
13. Trödel, 2473 edits, user since 2005-01-17
14. Karmafist, 2330 edits, user since 2004-08-09 (weak keep)
15. Grue, 2320 edits, user since 2004-08-28
16. Grace_Note, 2185 edits, user since 2005-01-27
17. Demiurge, 1962 edits, user since 2004-05-30
18. Yuckfoo, 1340 edits, user since 2004-11-23
19. Pilatus, 1307 edits, user since 2004-08-14
20. Turnstep, 1037, user since 2005-02-25
21. MCB, 852 edits, user since 2005-08-15
22. Wwwwolf, 723 edits, user since 2004-05-10
23. Ashenai, 708 edits, user since 2005-09-17
24. Lord_Bob, 687 edits, user since 2003-11-25
25. Ben_D., 616 edits, user since 2005-08-27
26. O^O, 357 edits, user since 2005-06-11
27. PMLF, 353 edits, user since 2004-10-19
28. Silensor, 204 edits, user since 2005-08-31
29. Edit, 110 edits, user since 1005-09-26
30. Phrost, 66 edits, user since 2004-07-14
31. Naar, 60 edits, user since 2005-05-11
32. WellsLaRivi%C3%A8re, 39 edits, user since 2005-09-4
33. GeeCee, 31 edits, user since 2005-08-01 (weak keep or merge)
34. Mewcenary, 22 edits, user since 2005-09-5
35. Kenpo_Tom, 14 edits, user since 2005-10-2
36. Gths, 13 edits, user since 2005-05-13
37. IceWeasel, 12 edits, user since 2005-07-21
38. Trypsin, 10 edits, user since 2005-08-18
39. Theodore_Therone, 4 edits, user since 2005-05-05
40. Pineapple, 2 edits, user since 2005-04-22
41. 141.131.3.22, 2 edits, user since 2005-09-21
42. Jas168, 1 edit, user since 2005-10-5
43. Ashwinr, 1 edit, user since 2005-10-6
44. Talain, 1 edit, user since 2005-10-6
45. 204.210.138.19, 1 edit, user since 2005-10-5 (signed as Atoramos*)
46. 69.209.185.209, 1 edit, user since 2005-10-5
47. 70.95.118.44, 1 edit, user since 2005-10-6
48. 67.94.68.122, 1 edit, user since 2005-10-7

Delete:

1. Lucky 6.9, 16410 edits, user since 2004-03-15
2. Redwolf24, 8993 edits, user since 2005-04-20
3. Fred Bauder, 7270 edits, user since 2002-11-01
4. Flcelloguy, 4715 edits, user since 2005-05-14
5. Ral315, 4203 edits, user since 2004-09-30
6. RN, 2942 edits, user since 2005-03-01 (or merge)
7. Aaron_Brenneman, 2460 edits, user since 2005-07-05
8. Phroziac, 2209 edits, user since 2005-06-02
9. Marskell, 663 edits, 2087 edits, user since 2005-02-17
10. Xoloz, 1697 edits, user since 2005-05-26
11. Jimbo Wales, 1398 edits, user since 2001-03-27
12. Titoxd, 1354 edits, user since 2005-04-02
13. Aranda56, 1037 edits, user sicne 2005-08-21
14. JiFish, 919 edits, user since 2005-04-13
15. Sean_Black, 781 edits, user since 2005-06-11 (or merge)
16. bjelleklang, 54 edits, user since 2005-09-25 (or merge)

Merge:

1. Tony Sidaway, 20238 edits, user since 2004-11-26

Neutral, Abstain, or No Vote:

1. Zach, 15304 edits, user since 2004-08-09 (no vote)
2. Fire Star, 8754 edits, user since 2004-02-10 (neutral)
3. Drini, 7800 edits, user since 2005-02-20 (abstain)
4. Hall Monitor, 7287 edits, user since 2005-05-11 (no vote)
5. Func, 6192 edits, user (as AdmN) since 2004-07-29 (no vote, objection)
6. Nickptar, 3008 edits, user since 2004-05-11 (no vote)

Closing the AfD

• Time to Close? This has been running for 7 days, more than the usual 5 days, every argument that is likely to exist has been brought out, and I would argue that either a consensus of keep has been achieved (or at very least a result of no consensus) and the numerical vote count is lopsided in favor of keep. There has been only one new vote since October 7. Will someone take the step, or alternatively make a case for not closing? MCB 01:22, 11 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.