Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closing as keep after careful review of both sides arguments and the prior afds, I do not see any new arguments not previously covered in AFD1 or AFD2. That being said, consensus here appears to lie with the keep side of the argument. I strongly suggest that additional references are found and added or this article may need to be stubbified due to potential WP:BLP concerns.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashida Kim

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Ashida Kim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Insufficiently notable living person. When the article does make citations, they are of either Kim's web sites, his detractors' web sites, or of a county document, essentially a primary source. There is no sign of significant coverage by mainstream media - a search of google news archives only got two hits, one of which was to do with this wikipedia article. This lack of mainstream coverage is especially concerning given that the article describes (even if it does not endorse) allegations of misconduct.

This article has been nominated for deletion twice previously, but under less than ideal circumstances.Andjam 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Ashida Kim is a published author of numerous books by an established press (Paladin Press), establishing his overall notability. He also apparently has been on a South African TV show demonstrating his methods (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eelg6ZPcp8), showing he has been in mainstream media in a major country. While his antics concerning his belt factory or his $10K/$25K challenge do not meet the same notability criteria, they are critical events in his history. I question the OP's justification for saying that the previous AfD circumstances were "less than ideal" when it was Jimbo Wales himself who wanted this article gone, but it was voted in to stay by the Wikipedia community. --Scb steve 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP Anyone who's familiar with the Martial Arts knows of Ashida Kim. This VfD is asinine. --Phrost 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You have still failed to answer Jimbo's question about this, 19 months after he asked it. Uncle G 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Jimbo's" concerns were clearly fueled by irrational fear. If you're a Martial Artist, especially one who grew up in the 80's during the ninja craze, you're familiar with Ashida Kim's works. The fact that he has been published over and over again alone warrants his inclusion especially when less notable persons such as Phil Elmore with fewer works are included with little controversy. But then, they haven't threatened "Jimbo". --Phrost 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • That is not an answer to Jimbo's question, either. You still have not answered it. Please cite the sources that Jimbo asked for 19 months ago. Uncle G 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Jimbo's question was already decided to be irrelevant by consensus. Stop using this article as a springboard to bypass the need for community consensus on your personal "policy", and stop invoking "Jimbo" to justify your crusading. It's disingenuous at best, and a flat-out corruption of Wikipedia's ideals at worst. --Phrost 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Would like to see some sources about this person independant of his organisation being used to verify the facts here. Of the references provided, the majority are from what appears to be Ashida Kim's personal website, or the website of his organisation. -- saberwyn 02:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep but...: While a notable person, this article is lacking many reliable sources or outside citations. Seeing as this is the third nomination, it is quite clear that many do not care for this article. Improve it or delete it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no way to improve it. Sources do not exist. Uncle G 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • sources do not exist this dosent count then? --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 11:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and clean up. Lacking sources on the article doesn't look good, but even Jimbo honored the previous keep on the 2nd AFD, and Kim seems to just cross the line. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• In the previous discussions, Jimbo Wales once again employed the Primary Notability Criterion, asking for sources to show that a person whom editors were saying was notable had actually been noted. Discussion ensued.

  Four sources were presented. The first was was this article in The Believer. It is an interview where the subject talks about xyrself, and thus autobiographical, and does not meet the independence requirement of the PNC. The second was a book review, that was about a book and that did not provide any information about M. Kim at all. It does not meet the PNC's requirement that the published works be non-trivial, i.e. actually contain material about the subject at hand. The third and fourth were "Brisbane Australia COURIER-MAIL, July 22, 1993 Thursday" and "January 5, 2002 Saturday Broward Metro Edition of the Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)". The third is little more than a regurgitation, by Amanda Smith, of Kim's own words and advertising, every paragraph of which from the 4th onwards is a statement either paraphrasing or simply quoting what Kim said verbatim. It, too, does not meet the independence requirement of the PNC. The fourth is an article by James D. Davis, that is 3 paragraphs (7 sentences, 120 words) long, and tells us nothing at all about M. Kim, since its actual subject is a book of koans. It, too, does not meet the PNC's requirement that the published works be non-trivial.

  Other arguments put forward fell into three main camps: Subjective opinions of notability, despite the fact that notability is not subjective; claims that this person is notable amongst martial artists, but with zero cited sources to answer Jimbo's question, posed at the start of the discussion, that "If he's so notable in martial arts circles, where are the articles about him in mainstream martial arts magazines?"; and arguments based upon the "published author" test. (One minor fourth camp of note was Func's argument that we should not be applying "these new uber-strict Jimbo-dictated rules of verifiability to every article on Wikipedia".)

  Searching, it appears that the nominator's concerns, in both this and the previous AFD discussion, are well-founded. This person simply does not satisfy the PNC. I can find no other news articles that even mention this person. I can find only 4 books by other people that mention Ashida Kim. One includes the name in a list of acknowledgements, one quotes Kim's definition of what a ninja is but says nothing at all about Kim, and one includes the name in a laundry lists of martial arts book authors and says nothing at all about it. Only the fourth (ISBN 1883319293) says anything at all about Kim. It devotes 8 words to xem: "an interesting name for an obvious round eye". None of these books satisfy the non-triviality requirement of the PNC.

  Needless to say, Phrost's argument above is the "notable amongst martial artists" argument, which has yet to be backed up with any sources at all in the 19 months since Jimbo asked the aforequoted question.

  Scb steve's argument, above, is another variation on the "published author" test. 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 fact that the current article is sourced solely to Kim's own web site and to a "bullshido" web site article that itself relies on original research performed on Wikipedia (It cites the talk page of this very article as its source.) only serves to illustrate that. There is no way to write a biographical article here.

  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 (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), don't hold water. Delete. Uncle G 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Uh... what the heck is this PNC? The link you provide is to... your user page? Is this policy? Has it been applied to other Wikipedia articles? Seriously, what? --Ashenai 04:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It has been applied in AFD discussions for years, and was applied in the very AFD discussion for this article that preceded this one, as pointed out above. You'll find that trying to simply out-vote it without sources as counterarguments will not work now. Uncle G 06:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • So, you have your own Personal Notability Criterion (PNC) that you like to apply and an unwavering conviction that everyone else should use it. (I see you have your own special words you use, too--xyrself etc.) I think you still need to answer the repeatedly asked question: If your Personal Notability Criterion is such an important policy, why hasn't it been adopted by Wikipedia? I take your posts as advocacy of your position on what should be notable more than an actual discussion of this particular case. JJL 00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ...And now I've done my research, and I see that WP:NOTABILITY lists this essay as "an exemplar arguing in favor of specific notability criteria", not something that reflects general consensus on notability. I'm sorry, but I must strongly object to this goalpost-moving. An article should meet notability standards that have been discussed and agreed upon by consensus, not requirements set forth in your personal essay. --Ashenai 04:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There has been no goalpost moving. The PNC has been in use for years, now. The fact that you have not cited a single source strongly implies that you have no sources to cite to refute the charge that the PNC is not satisfied. Please cite sources. They are your only valid counterarguments. Uncle G 06:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If the PNC has been in use for years, why is it not a guideline or a policy? What does "has been in use for years now" mean, exactly? Furthermore, please do not conflate interviews with autobiographies. A newspaper publishing an interview with a person is not an autobiography. --Ashenai 06:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It means what it says. And an interview where the subject is talking about xyrself clearly is autobiographical. Uncle G 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Let me further clarify the question then. "In use" by whom? You? A majority of editors? In what percentage of AfD discussions? Why is it not a policy or a guideline? --Ashenai 07:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
            • An interview is Biographical not Autobiographical unless your interviewing yourself.--Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 11:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per the previous two AfD's. Ashida Kim is the author of several books by non-vanity presses, and at least one of those books have been independently reviewed. I believe this makes him notable by Wikipedia standards, quite apart from his actual claim to fame, which is his (admittedly difficult to verify) cult popularity in certain martial-arts subcultures. --Ashenai 04:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • None of which addresses the lack of multiple non-trivial published works, about this person, from reliable and independent sources. The way to do that is to cite sources. You cite zero sources, and state that we should keep an article despite the fact that you are unable to point to any sources. That's an argument that doesn't hold water, and that you will find to be unsuccessful now, as explained above. Uncle G 06:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I cited sources in the last AfD, and you included them (or some of them), above. I have no idea if they meet the requirements of PNC, nor do I greatly care. I believe they demonstrate sufficient notability. If you'd like PNC to be an acceptable yardstick for encyclopedic content, please gather consensus and get a stable version of it into Wikipedia:List of guidelines or Wikipedia:List of policies. Alternately, please demonstrate that there is consensus behind it. Otherwise, I do not see why anyone should care about PNC. --Ashenai 06:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, you do have an idea. You read the above, where it is shown that they don't satisfy the requirements. If you think that sources that don't talk about the subject at all, or that are not independent of the subject, or that are simply unreliable (because they use the Wikipedia article's own talk page as their source), demonstrate notability, then you have the wrong idea of what needs to be done to demonstrate notability. I repeat: This has been the yardstick for many years, now. You will find that your continued failure to cite multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject will lead to deletion. Your only weapon is to cite sources. Please cite sources. Uncle G 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • You are still trying to brush aside the question of why we need to satisfy PNC, besides vague assurances that "it's been in use for a long time now". Please explain: if the PNC has really been in general use for years now, why is it not policy, or even a guideline? Frankly, it seems to me that you're trying to browbeat me into accepting your personal criteria for article notability. I do not appreciate the way you're trying to make your essay into a de facto guideline by forcing it into an AfD discussion like this. The {{not a ballot}} template you yourself put on the top of the page says "We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this", and clicking on the link, the PNC on which all your arguments hinge seems to be conspicuously absent from the list. --Ashenai 06:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Author is notable in his field (regardless of reason for notability), User Phrost put the other argument foward better. Article should not have been renominated. Iscariot Ex Machina 08:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of Google hits, as he only got 1. How notable can a person be with 1 hit? I have 463 (yes, they are all about me, no one else with the same name), and I am a normal, everyday person. hmwithtalk 09:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There's definitely something off there. Could you link your Google search? I get over 30 thousand hits. [1] --Ashenai 09:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't there something against "appealing to Google" anyway? The fact that Kim-related articles aren't properly optimized for search engines has no relevance on whether or not this guy was a huge part of the "Ninja Craze" in the 80's (before the Internet) or a published author. Hell, I used to own one of this guy's books as a teenager, almost 20 years ago. --Phrost 14:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There is Wikipedia:Search engine test, the key to it being: "Measuring is easy. What's hard is knowing what it is you're measuring." for example I get 536 on the UK google & 130,000 on the general for [ashida kim] a fairly spesific ["ashida kim" ninja] gives 19,700, so still a fair few for probably mostly relevant listings. p.s. adding [-wikipedia -bullshido] still hits 17,600 --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 15:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I misread the nomination. It said the news archive, not general searching. I am quickly retracting my opinion. hmwithtalk 00:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the comprehensive logic of Uncle G and Kim's non-notability. tomasz. 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Multiple published author, and a court case so some notability. Asking for a clean up is fair Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts might be the place to start, I'd suggest a clean up/source hunt then review this. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Ashida Kim is a noteable figure in the world of Martial Arts. He is famous outside of his own field of ninjutsu. He has been interviewed on South African television [2] and a search on www.amazon.co.uk reveals 20 books authored by Kim which are therefore available through a mainstream bookstore. I would argue that bullshido.com's investigation of Kim is equivalent to an article which has been through the peer review process as it has been reviewed by legal professionals and martial artists as part of Bullshido's editing process (and I say that as someone who is not a member of the bullshido website). A biography of an author of multiple published books is justified in my opinion. Shinji nishizono 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: This fellow's been a name (albeit a controversial and tainted one) in the martial arts community for a couple decades now. I do find it incredibly incongruous for Uncle G to keep demanding more sources while at the same time promoting his own personal essay as a valid policy upon which to judge articles. This "PNC" of his is neither a Wikipedia guideline or policy, and frankly, I don't give a rat's patootie whether its "requirements" are satisfied or for the tone of its creator's responses that those who dare to challenge it will not succeed.  RGTraynor  13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Hm, one final thing. Why the afdanons template? I don't see a single SPA account posting here ... did I miss any?  RGTraynor  14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• at a guess it's because there is an interest from kim's acolytes, who have repeatedly re-written & (in my opinion) vandalised the article, and from Bullshido.net members (including myself) --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep definitely notable. JJL 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable and per two prior AfD keep discussions. I do not understand the rationale for bringing this back to AfD for a third round. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: If you go to any martial arts specific discussion forum in the world and talk about Ashida Kim, he will already have been discussed. This means nothing in terms of his credibility or anything, nor does it probably count as having sources, but it does indicate that the man is notorious within a specific field, like many others who appear on wikipedia. I will agree with others that more sources would be nice, but part of Ashida Kim's problem is that there's very little verifiable information about him. However, he is very well known among martial artists and should definitely not be removed from wikipedia. EDITED TO ADD: Whoever said that google only gets him once was gravely mistaken... "Results 1 - 10 of about 130,000 for Ashida Kim. (0.23 seconds)" Simple enough to verify that oneTriune 18:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Google news archive search gets 1 non-wikipedia hit, as opposed to google web search. Andjam 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per the following justification from User:O^O in the last AFD:

1. Amazon.com shows "Ashida Kim" as the author of sixteen books. [3] 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]
4. "Ashida Kim" has been interviewed in the May 2003 "The Believer" magazine. [5]
5. "Ashida Kim" has been a topic of discussion and controversy on the internet since at least 1991. - [6]
6. "Ashida Kim" has been written about in the Queenland Courier-Mail (July 22, 1993) (LexisNexis)

*** Crotalus *** 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete or heavy edit - Ashida kim should neither been rocognised for martial arts or promoted, by having him on wiki you are helping to promote this fraudster! if it is decided to keep Ashida you should at least pay credit to the millions of people who feel the need to voice the fact that Ashida is a fruad and a should never be associated with the legitimate martial arts world. It should also be noted that Ashida makes alot of money thourgh his fraudulent claims to be a supreme martial artist, despite the fact he is clearly just a fake who is in it for the money - see www.bullshido.com and or http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67044&page=7&pp=15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.30.40 (talk • contribs) 11:15, May 30, 2007

• Comment: The purpose of Wikipedia isn't as a consumer advocacy forum; I suggest you take a look at WP:NOT for more information. That being said, some of the editors advocating Keep are from bullshido.com.  RGTraynor  17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree Wiki isn't a consumer advocacy forum, his writings and legal issues make him notable and the other information, such as his identity and the question as to if his opinions and assertions on the subject of his writing are valid, should be included to balance it. (I may be re stating what I've already said here, if so sorry))--Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There are several different notable fraudsters and hoaxes that have articles on Wikipedia (Piltdown man, all these people). The crux of this AfD is whether or not there are enough sources to build a NPOV article, not whether or not we like ths subject of the article. (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Crotalus, his notability is verifiable, and while there is much controversy surrounding him and claims regarding him and that he has made, there is certainly enough notability and verifiablity to warrant a wikipedia article. This is the third time around, and nothing has changed. --Wingsandsword 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment
  

  
  (Someone might want to clean up the formatting on this). As an experiment to see how "notable" Ashida Kim is, I took time on my lunch break to drive over to a local used book store and see if I could find anything of his there. The "Martial Arts" section of this bookstore is two small shelves about 3' wide. As you can see, in this small section, in suburban Kansas City, there were TWO books by this guy. Make of that what you will, but the argument that "Kim" is not notable is flat-out incorrect. --Phrost 00:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I moved the image to the right and made it a thumbnail. Hope that is alright. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perfect, thanks a ton!

• Strong keep with a less biased article. I know as well as anyone that his knowledge of ninjutsu is close to none, but articles on Wikipedia are not for playing favorites. The page needs to be reformatted to be more of a biography of a living person than a straight out bashfest. The S 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep please this is a old discussion the person is notable in martial arts field my friend has one of his books even from when he was young yuckfoo 01:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Ashida Kim is the stereotypical martial arts fraud, and his is one of the most recognized names in all of martial arts due to years of exposed lies and high profile silliness. His books still sell, and are present at many mainstreme bookstores. (RookZERO 19:43, 4 June 2007 (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.