Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Ninomiya

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 keep. Coredesat 07:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kent Ninomiya

Kent Ninomiya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable person having bio created by sock puppet accounts, external links are spammy, article is part of a campaign by some publicity company; see article's talk page Markusbradley (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Definite Keep spammy to be sure, but isn't the AJR article [1] evidence enough for notability?DGG (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt one mention in an online publication qualifies. He's not of national or global significance -- he's just a local TV news anchor who got canned last year for some weird sex scandal and then hired some PR army to go and clean up the mess. This article is a result that is in sync with that campaign, it was created by the same people at the same time (as in, it was created after the sex scandal and not while he was still on the air). You'd have to be a super, super, super hardcore inclusionist to keep an obvious spam article about someone of basically no tangible significance (other than the sex scandal). Markusbradley (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AJR is a highly respected print "publication of the University System of Maryland Foundation with offices at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland." It's not a blog; it's not a peer reviewed journal, but a respectable professional magazine, held in about 800 US libraries The item cited just the online version---the print eds to be found and listed also, but that's a detail. The material presented there seems clearly enough for notability regardless of anything else. I see there was some sort of a scandal, but I see no suitable unquestionably reliable sources for it to be added to the article. But FWIW, I notice the article omits the dates of his positions, and seems to omit at least one of them. Probably needs some careful editing. DGG (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A valid point, but one page consuming a press release (which is what the link above is) doesn't sound like concrete or significant evidence of notability to me. I've been shocked to see what longstanding articles have passed AfD and been nuked in the past; it seems like this one is almost of exponentially less importance, especially considering all of the edits have been made by the same sock puppet juggling user or PR firm. Markusbradley (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Historically Significant Kent Ninomiya was the first Asian American male to be a primary news anchor at a US TV station. That is a significant issue in the journalism and Asian American communities. It is well known that there are many high profile Asian American women on TV but very few Asian American men. Just because Markusbradley is on some crusade to remove the wikipedia page doesn't diminish the accomplishment. That's like saying Jackie Robinson isn't important because you don't like black people. It is racist to say an issue isn't important just because you personally don't care about it. There are many people who do care about the Asian male anchor issue. A discussion on the topic is not complete without mentioning Kent Ninomiya. Markusbradley also sites false internet rumors about a sex scandal. If you look at the facts you will see that Kent Ninomiya was never arrested or charged with any crime and left that station months before the woman's trial for reasons not associated with her drunk driving. [User:Markusbradley|Markusbradley]] has done nothing on wikipedia in more than a year other than try to get the Kent Ninomiya wikipedia page removed. Ask yourself why he has this agenda and why it means so much to him to have this page removed. Georgiamonet (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel weird having to reply to this, but it's not a racist issue, so please don't try to make it one. I nominated it out of my own opinion, and because it's overly spammy and it was created by users whose edits aren't from the community, but from a cadre of sock puppet accounts. Markusbradley (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, conflict of interest? Markusbradley (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• REMOVE SPAM Weeunit (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete (self vote) Viewing the article's edit history shows that a handful of users have created and continued edits on the article. Their contributions are limited to the same article. As proof that this is a spam article and that it is not of encyclopedic significance, one has only to view the posts made by Georgiamonet to understand the POV action that is of an extremely aggressive public relations caliber. Furthermore, please look at the usernames of the contributors to the article and do some simple Google searches to get a more full understanding of the true nature of this article:

Dialga27

Georgiamonet

Sontoku

Markusbradley (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete While Mr. Ninomiya's achievement as first Asian-American male anchor is significant, perhaps that should be merged into a section under the AAJA article. He is mentioned in about 90 news articles on a Google News search for his name as of today. Shouldn't there be a book about this man to cross-reference the magazines or short news articles? Snowxh (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• tough call The sources seem to establish notability, but the article has terrible POV issues, in that it reads like a press release. I'm gonna go with keep but it needs to be completely re-written from a neutral POV.Beeblbrox (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Some valid points are made here and changes were made to address them. Some spam and incorrect information has been left on this article in the past by suspicious users, but was later removed. Most notably Sontoku who posted completely false information about a bunch of random people with the same surname. There are sock puppets out there but I am not one of them. I resent Markusbradley's assertion that I am. He has made no contributions to wikipedia since 2006 except to try to delete this article. If anyone is a sock puppet he is. I believe the historic significance is validated by reputable sources. What will deleting this article do except remove information from wikipedia that could be of use to someone? Georgiamonet (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: you already listed one vote. Also, seriously, relax; your fiercely pointed rambles do no credit to you or your cause. And I've love for you to address how you are NOT some PR agent working overtime to fill the internet with Kent Ninomiya spam. Markusbradley (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabbit98 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• commentLet's try to keep the focus on the subject at hand, not the people involved. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: text rewritten and spam removed to address the concerns of community Georgiamonet (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Subject is notable, but references are needed and article needs to be framed in neutral way. Taxman214 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

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.