Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Ashida Kim

This entry was moved from the main AfD page to its own subpage. No vote yet Pilatus 16:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please Delete Ashida Kim

This is the fifth time I have come to your administration council asking to be removed from your site. For several years I didn't even know it existed, no one from your outfit had the common courtesy to notify me at all. When I found out abut it, it proved to be a pure "trash and bash" site foisted on you by the mental midgets at Bullshido.net, who slam everyone in the martial arts world, including me, most of whom they have never met. They went to great difficulty to "set me up" so they could pretend I committed some infringement on their personal space, they use every dirty debating trick in the book, like demanding proof then refusing to accept it, and are not capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion. They come to my website and bash me every time they get a new account because I have banned hundreds of "sock puppet names" they create to harass me. But, the final straw was them stating in a post giving the names, addresses and phone numbers</a> of several of my friends so the could be attacked that "two members of Bullshido have reviewed a videotape of a man in the yard at (address withheld) who appears to be the same older man shown as Ashida Kim in this picture (link to an associate website)." Now gentlemen, no matter what you say, that is stalking. It is a crime. I have committed no crime, all I have ever done was defend myself against the scurrilous attacks of a pack of internet trolls. I have come here many times to ask that this entry be removed OR protected. Last time I create an account so I could monitor the entry, your crew just deleted it till now. Then restored it ONLY because I complained about it. I did not come here to "turn the site into a personal endorsement." I come here every time to ask you to remove it. What I get in return is "pass the buck" to this page or that so I must repeat my complaint a thousand times only to have it ignored again. So, here we are doing it all again, doing it your way, by your rules, following your policies. I don't understand why you INSIST on keeping this page up except to harass me and make me waste my time begging you to take it down. Am I so important to you that you must continue this shabby treatment? You guys make a big deal out of Bill Aguair saying I wasn't in the BDFS; even after I showed him my ID card signed by his Grandmaster. BUT, when HE came to my site and demanded, not asked politely as I have done many times to you, that I stop claming to be affiliated with him and that I take down all references to the BDFS, I did it. Simple to keep the peace. Why is it you can't do the same here? Why is it so important that you maintain a page that is repeated vandalized, that I, the subject, do not want up in the first place, and that has now become a source of information used by stalkers to sneak up and attack my friends? See, if we have to fight one of these clowns and kill him, or they us, it won't hurt YOU at all, safely behind your intellectual armor and distanced by the internet. But the families of those involved will pay the emotional price for years. Is that what you want? So, I ask again, as politely and respectfully as I can, please remove the Ashida Kim entry. Now, because some of the moderators on this board have accused me of being an impersonator, so they could ignore my request, my e-mail is given below. I have had this address for twelve years. Everyone on the internet knows how to get in touch with me because the trolls delight in spamming me to death; and you, with this entry, are helping them. --Ashida Kim dojopress@aol.com

  • If Mr. Kim would state an adequate, appropriate reason why the page on him ought to be deleted, such as that he's insufficiently notable to be worthy of mention here, then I might vote to delete it, but for now, with only his blustery, ranting demands, I feel compelled to vote to Keep just to show that we don't give in to such attempts at bullying. *Dan T.* 16:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. As much as I wouldn't mind seeing the article go away forever, "Kim" is a somewhat notable character in the Western neo-ninja fantasy martial arts business. He has been selling books detailing his theories on how to murder people secretly through ads in the back of comic books for some 20 years or so now, and is also the subject of much ridicule at the bullshido.com website and others. The user above who signed himself "Ashida Kim" requesting this AfD seems to be the same person who has an account at User:Ashida Kim that he has apparently forgotten how to access. In general, the user does show a consistent pattern of disjointed invective, personal attacks and legal threats throughout his tenure here, including in the last few days on my talk page. --Fire Star 16:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The whole things smells like a hoax. Either we're talking about a charlatan or someone poking fun at us. Either way, the person in question seems very non-notable. / Peter Isotalo 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Firestar says I forgot how to access my account. I say the account was closed without notrification or permission. When I tried to access it I got a page that said "No User Account Has Been Established." Once again, you demonstrate your prejudice. Then you delete my arguments so only my enemies have a voice.
BUT that is irrelevant. DTobias, You ask for "an adequate, appropriate reason why the page on him ought to be deleted." Isn't putting the lives of my friends in danger sufficient? Isn't stalking them in their own homes enough? You claim I've got all this "bluster?" Where is it? I related the facts of the case and BEGGED you to PLEASE Protect or Remove this page, (can't get more humble or defeated than that) and YOU come back with a personal attack against my attitude, which I earned honestly dealing with this same kind of repeated baiting. Breaking your own rules means nothing, eh? And, all of this is for nothing. Because this is your game. To taunt, to split hairs, to hide behind your "policies" and pretend you are important. I'm not that important. You want me to say it so you can publish it to all your troll buddies on the troll web ring, fine. "I'm not that great. Anyone can do what I do if they but know how, and I show them how." Humble enough for ya? Will you take down the entry now? Of course not, because getting attention from me is all you live for, LOL Ashida Kim
I actually said "apparently forgotten" as I didn't want to assert categorically that you had. The account hasn't been deleted. Even if you were banned it wouldn't be deleted. The following collection of blue, underlined letters are a "link", put your screen's cursor on them on them and right click your mouse: User:Ashida Kim. The account is still there. --Fire Star 17:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, please see the entire edit history of User:Ashida Kim. You will see that there was a quick flurry of edits from 22:49, July 5, 2005 (when the page was created) to 23:13, July 5, 2005, after which it remained untouched to this day. All of the edits were made by the owner of the user page, and it was never deleted. If it ever had been deleted, the edit history would show that. --Ashenai 21:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There doesn't seem to be anything on this page which could be viewed as endangering anyone's life. No address is provided -- not even a real name. Although the subject of this article may, in fact, be the victim on stalkers, there is nothing in this article which promotes or facilitates such illegal activity. Pburka 17:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • On further reflection, I will vote to keep this article. Despite the subject's claims, this article demonstrates that Wikipedia's editors are actively pursuing a NPOV and do not tolerate inappropriate information which might contribute to stalking. Most incidents of vandalism to this article seem to have been fixed within an hour of their occurance. If Mr. Kim prefers to remain anonymous, I suggest that he stop publishing books and maintaining his own website. Pburka 22:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article's subject is (barely) notable. There are examples of stalker-like edits in the page's histroy, (addresses, phone numbers, etc), given in the page's history, (which page protection won't hide, btw), but this is simple vandalism, and can be quickly corrected. The stalker-ish edits in the history can also be excised from public view, if it is felt to be truly nessesary, but none of this has to do with whether or not the article should be kept. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person seems to be somewhat notable within the fantasy world inhabited by those who think that a knowledge of eastern martial arts makes them supermen. Even if the complainant really is Ashida Kim, there's no reason to delete an article just because the subject asks us to, as long as the information is accurate. -- Necrothesp 19:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Whether the fantasy world that Necrothesp is talking about is notable or not is also a decent debate, but i'll go with the crowd and say that we're just barely past ninjacruft here. Due to the remarkable work of Fire Star, this article has gone from a piece of self indulgent tripe into a fairly good article. The real problem with it though isn't the article itself, but Ashida Kim's behavior, which you can see for yourself on this AfD. I used to think it was just humorous posturing, but it really is getting disruptive and I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually gets banned for something. Karmafist 23:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Try To Stay On Topic. This is not about the information being accurate. Which it isn't. It is about this entry be used to post the names of my friends so they can be attacked. Please pay attention and quit wandering off topic. And quit pretending that this isn't me talking to you. That is just another cheap shot from a bunch of cheap shot experts! Ashida Kim
    • You're the one who's off-topic, since the valid criteria for deletion of an article have nothing to do with people using it to post names of people for stalking -- that, if it happens, is considered vandalism and is dealt with by reverting the particular edits, and/or banning the particular users involved; it says nothing about whether the article they happen to be vandalizing ought to be deleted or not. And, incidentally, I see no signs of any edits within the last few weeks that involve posting anybody's name or address for the purpose of enabling stalking; if such has happened, it must be a long time ago, and not relevant to current deletion or protection discussion. This page is for the discussion of whether the page should be deleted, and is not the appropriate place to report vandalism or stalking. *Dan T.* 21:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If somebody were to post the names and addresses of friends of George W. Bush for the purpose of enabling stalking and harrassment, would that be a valid reason to delete the article on G.W.B. altogether? *Dan T.* 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable pseudo-ninja. Someone notable enough to be a public figure, even of such minor stature as this douchebag, doesn't get to have his article removed just because he doesn't like it. Are there inaccuracies? Note them on the talk page so they can be fixed. (Fixing them yourself--well, we discourage writing and editing articles about yourself.) If the verifiable and accurate information exposes you as a douchebag, you only have yourself to blame. -- Phil Welch 21:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable person/topic and long diatribes from the subject of an article should not influence how an encyclopedia treats the subject matter. Trödel|talk 21:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If there is stalking going on, calling the local authorities seems more appropriate than trying to police the Internet. Protecting the page seems a prudent step as well: it is not as if this is a very dynamic page. Turnstep 22:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notable. Vandalism can be dealt with the normal Wikipedia way. Personal information in the page history can be removed by administrators. --cesarb 22:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable for his many, uh, "contributions" to the MA community, even if he is a little nutty. Sean 22:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE There is no proof of any of the claims made against Ashida Kim. Further, the posting of the names and locations of his friends and associates is a direct invasion of privacy that could lead to unfortunate situations for both parties. The truth regarding Mr.Kim is not really known, other than what he has willingly revealed, and so it is in-appropriate to post such claims that are mere assumptions based on little real evidence. Such is the work of biased men who posess narrow minded views regarding a man who has done no harm to anyone and just wishes to be left alone. Please be responsible and remove the article. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.194.228 (talk • contribs) , who was also recently temp blocked for blanking portions of the project article repeatedly.
  • Keep somewhat notable article which shows Wikipedia's commitment to NPOV Ashibaka (tock) 02:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Tobias and Phil, If either of you had read the Discussion Page for Ashida Kim you would have seen the names I object to being STILL published. If you had read the first entry in this thread you would have seen me quote Bullshido saying they had taped my friends. THAT is evidence of stalking. The reason you don't see it is because you refuse to look at it. As for you Turnstep, the only reason my diatribes are so long is because guys like you keep making me repeat it all. What you want is for me to get angry so you can tell me how "non-grandmasterly" I am acting. THAT is proof that all of you lot are just trolls looking for attention. There is no justice here. On the one hand you tell me how insignificant I am, and in the next breath compare me to George Bush. Which is it? Either one that makes you silly point because you are lying. Old lawyer trick, "when the facts are on your side, pound on the facts, when the law is on your side pound on the law, when neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound on the table." That is what you are doing, just making noise to make yourselves heard. I have shown you up for the little pimps you are. If I am so insignificant, why keep me on site? Answer, to harass me. If I am so great as George Bush, why not talk to me and get the truth instead of publishing a bunch of lies and making me waste all this time more than once in a futile effort to change your closed minds? Any sane person can see who is in the right here, and it ain't you guys, LOL --Ashida Kim

I don't see any names and addresses on the discussion page, so I guess I'm blind or something. *Dan T.* 22:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

On September 6th the entry began "Ashida Kim is the pseudonym of Radford Davis." I have been complaining about it ever since. Just because you changed it doesn't mean tomorrow some troll can't come in and put it, or any of the other five names they think are my "secret identity," right back up again. This is the THIRD time I have said that in this discussion alone. ==Ashida Kim

  • Comment. And when they do, it will usually be reverted within an hour (although it did take 4 days last time). Attempting to prevent people from talking about you on the Internet is futile at best. Pburka 23:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You just admitted your system doesn't work, LOL And then there is CesarB, making empty promises to take out all the names, but I don't see that happening. It didn't happen the first time, it hasn't happened since the last time I came here to bitch about this, and it won't happen now. Just more lame excuses. If you look at all these votes to keep the post you will see that not a single one is based on any logical reason. Most are just "keep it up to spite him." What an arrogant attitude you lot have, LOL --Ashida Kim

If you tell me which revisions have the offending personal information (the links from the page history), I can look at it. I cannot guess which revisions contain personal information which should be removed. --cesarb 03:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Should the most appropriate action be asking the administrator to set the page as "protected" due to multiple vandalism? --Hurricane111 02:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't that much vandalism compared to some pages. We are generally reluctant to protect pages for extended periods of time so that well meaning editors can have as much of a go as possible at improving them. We'll usually block the vandal instead for ever increasing amounts of time, up to indefinitely, if they insist on continuing. We usually only protect a real article temporarily in special circumstances (hordes of vandals all editing at the same time, usually), and never permanently. --Fire Star 02:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The anonymous user claiming to be Ashida Kim just blanked the Ashida Kim article. This is vandalism, and will not help your cause. Perhaps you were just testing how quickly vandalism would be reverted? Pburka 03:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - over 17,000 Google hits. --Ixfd64 05:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You keep saying if the page gets too many edits it will be protected or removed. But when someone tries to edit it, you blame ME and say it won't help? Once again, I have proven that you are a prejudiced bunch of trolls who refuse to play by your own rules. BTW CesarB TAKE OUT ALL THE NAMES! TAKE DOWN THE WHOLE DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT IS PURE TRIPE. Just like this one is. --Ashida Kim

  • Comment. This either a trolling or a publicity stunt and you're all giving it a boost by voting to keep the article. And is 15,000 or so Google hits really surprising for an Internet charlatan? / Peter Isotalo 12:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And, just to show how "fair and balanced" this forum is, I have so far had five of my associates who came here to post votes for deletion who have had their votes deleted and their IPs blocked. --Ashida Kim

What five votes? I've looked at the history of this page, and can't find any deleted votes; there's one vote by an anonymous user who's been blocked for vandalism, which was later marked as such by another user (but not deleted). *Dan T.* 14:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What a load of cheats and liars you are. There is no more User Page for Ashida Kim, proving that, as I said before, YOU closed it. Every time one of my friends comes here to cast a vote for deletion they are blocked and their vote deleted. You say that if a page comes under an edit war you will close it, but whenever anyone tries to edit it you revert and block their IP. You even accuse me of doing it and prevent me from making any more entries on the AfD page. See boys, this is a rigged game. Just like I said it was. You refuse to play by your own rules. So stop pretending you are on some "noble mission" to save the world from mean old Ashida. There is an old Gaelic saying, "Them that don't like us, may God turn their hearts, and if he can't turn their hearts may he turn their ankles so we will know them by their limping." That is why you boys are lame ass trolls, LOL --Ashida Kim
Actually, User:Ashida Kim is where it always was, so I have no idea what you're whining about. *Dan T.* 15:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I've mentioned that to our friend several times. I've used small, easy to understand words and gave simple, clear directions on how to access the link (see above) and yet he repeatedly ignores its existence. Perhaps he put a ninja invisibility spell on himself? --Fire Star 20:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I had this posted right in my user page not long ago. An exact copy of the rant above.
Peter Isotalo 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Ashida Kim is very notable in martial arts circles. If the article is biased or otherwise incorrect (I have no opinion on this), then it should be fixed, not deleted. -- Ashenai 15:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey DanT, you and your clowns can take things down and put them up at will. I don't see you denying any of the other charges. According to troll logic that means I'm right. I say again, look at the votes to keep. Almost all of them are for vindictive reasons, just to aggravate me is the main theme. Can't you see a pattern of abuse here? I ask you again, if I am so insignificant, why do you insist on maintaining this pillory, trash and bash site? Just for meanness. Just because you love to make me waste my time arguing with you when you are as biased as a Congressional committee. You're going to keep on hounding me as long as you can get away with it. But, I am showing everyone who comes to your silly ass site what a prejudiced bunch of punks you are. So just keep it up! --Ashida Kim
Um... are you addressing me with this? I don't even know who Dan T is. I don't think you're insignificant. If you were, I'd have voted to delete this article. I believe you are notable, notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Whether you want to be on Wikipedia or not is pretty much immaterial. All that counts is whether you're notable enough or not. Though naturally, as a very highly privileged source of information regarding yourself, your input into the article is very much valued! --Ashenai 20:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to be a notable figure within his field. Also, please move some of these comments to the discussion page. Hall Monitor 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, The article is short on facts and seems to generate a lot of controversy. If the guy is really famous and genuine then in a years time it will reappear. Lukeisham 12:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, the article has been being altered recently by (presumably) Ashida Kim's friends. There is a less POV version that was originally posted for AfD that I and others restore when we can, which may be more edifying. --Fire Star 12:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be a notable figure. As for personal information being visible in the previous edits, guess what, a simple google search does the same with 245 results for "Ashida Kim" Radford Davis [1]. N.B. And spamming userpages is not acceptable. -feydey 12:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I am in support of Ashida Kim and his reasons for wanting the article to be removed. I also believe whole heartedly that if the person which the article is about wishes it to be taken down, you should respect their wishes. There's freedom of press and then invasion of privacy and utter dis-respect. Please try and be considerate towards the victims here. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.95.203 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 September 2005
  • Keep, if for no other reason than to make the point that Wikipedia does not take kindly to empty legal threats. Agree with Hall Monitor, too.—chris.lawson (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I am in support of Ashida Kim and what he teaches as well. Some may misinterpret what is being taught, yet on the other hand people like Harunaka Hoshino, Ronald Duncan, Stephan Hayes, and Massaki Hatsumi are allowed to teach similar methods and no one goes after them. Maybe if you guys actually were serious martial artsits that experimented with the fighting arts more you would see the jewels within. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.139 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 September 2005(Please note: this IP address is an IP address that has made edits signed "Ashida Kim.") *Dan T.* 00:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, for the record, I am a professional martial arts teacher who has trained for many years around the world, especially in Shanghai and Hong Kong, and I'm not afraid of ninjas. This debate isn't a debate on whether Kim is really a ninja or if he is a crook or not (we'll let verifiable sources say that, not us), but on whether he is notable enough for an encyclopaedia entry. The answer seems to be yes. --Fire Star 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. People deserve to know what kind of bullshit this guy spews. Frenchman113 23:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ashida Kim is martial artist that is

both world renown for his work in both theater, and in the ring. The influence Ashida Kim has contributed to culture, and lives is too noteworthy to be erased. --Masssiveego 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable crackpot. Handle the article and his vandalism just like Sollog was dealt with. jni 12:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. SOunds like many of you are jealous. You keep mentioning how well known and popular Master Kim is. That is enough in my book to warrant removal of this article. Here's the kicker, I'm not even a ninja, I am a Chinese Internal Arts instructor, but I do believe that Master Kim, as any one else in the world has the right to live his life. By keeping this article you have infringed on one of every persons most basic rights: To keep slanderous and libelous statements from tarnishing one's character. Which in turn disallows them to go where and as they will as well as disallowing them to operate a business. This article is based on speculation, there are not enough facts contained in it to allow it to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.139 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 September 2005(Please note: this IP address is an IP address that has made edits signed "Ashida Kim.") --Ashenai 16:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment no, this entry was made by me. Not Ashida Kim IPrescott 23:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it was made by Ashida Kim. I said it was made by an IP address (64.12.116.139) who also made edits signed "Ashida Kim". Here, have a look. If this person was you, then you should either stop editing Wikipedia from the same IP address used by trolls, or you need to stop signing your comments with other people's names. Cheers! --Ashenai 08:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "...how well known and popular [he] is... is enough... to warrant removal of this article"? Maybe in the Bizarro World... *Dan T.* 16:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I honestly do not think this is worth keeping and, given this individual's systemic attacks on this site and its users, he needs to be shown the same door as Shawn Mikula and "Indigo Genius." This guy has been absolutely flooding my e-mail with the same kinds of bombastic attacks he's been posting here. I had never even heard of him or this article before he started in on me. Tried to help him and all he could do was to keep on yelling and screaming about how "rigged" Wikipedia is. I finally had to tell him to take a hike. - Lucky 6.9 17:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I admit that I do like the idea of not caving in to threats, so if it stays, it won't break my heart. No change of vote at this point, but give it time. You never know what we of the cabal might decide to do next. Mwaahaahaaaa! - Lucky 6.9 17:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Ryan Delaney talk 02:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.--Pharos 08:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but not because the subject wants it so. It seems to me that it is sufficient to mention this hoaxter/mountebank in an article on "neo-ninja" or "belt factory," rather than to break him out to his own. Break outs on people should arguably be biographies, and there is no biography to provide on a fictional front for a commercial enterprise. At any rate, although I see the person's notoriety being substantial within a community, I don't see its being sufficient for a solo article on this particular entity. (N.b. I am saying that he should be discussed, but in miniature, in a discussion of other charlatans.) Geogre 13:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- though I agree with Geogre on basic principle, I don't think his points add up to a solid argument in favor of deletion (Wikipedia is not paper and all). Ashida Kim seems to be a notable crackpot within his field, so he warrants an article. In addition, sanction the user signing as "Ashida Kim" for disruption of process. Haikupoet 18:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this person seems like a notable ninja to me Yuckfoo 18:28, 23 September 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.