Talk:Kent Ninomiya

AfD

I nominated this for speedy deletion because, foremost, the person isn't notable, and secondly, because of the incredible spammy PR firm behind its creation. If you check the edit history of the article, you'll notice a great deal of sock puppets used to add information.

The article also has a great deal of obvious spam sites filled with keywords meant to manipulate search rankings and bolster the presumed popularity of this person. It comes across as the result of an extremely aggressive -- but misguided -- PR firm trying to advertise the person. Markusbradley (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion; evidence & discussion

Viewing the history shows edits done by multiple accounts whose contributions are reserved to just this article. They're sock puppet accounts responsible for creating and pruning the article, as well as adding a bunch of links that add absolutely no value whatsoever.

Viewing the links takes you to pages that advertise "Kent Ninomiya Travel" links and "Kent Ninomiya Shopping" resources, surrounded by ads and full of the same, duplicate content which seems to be aggregated from a single news source.

These links are of the same quality as the numerous accounts set up seemingly to promote this non-notable individual on social sites like digg. You can view the quality of the posts made by the same author to see the self-serving nature of the account, with 10 links in each signature of each duplicate comment.

While Wikipedia is not digg, nor would activities by a user with the same name be evidence against deleting this article, the person still more than qualifies as a non-notable local TV news anchor. Furthermore, if the person posting on digg (and infinite other social media sites) is the one posting the same links on this article, he's clearly responsible for creating sock puppet accounts to create a self-serving article for promotional purposes. In the end, it's still not useful to Wikipedia, because of its encyclopedic unworthiness, its creation by sock puppets, its external links meant to give credibility to spam, and its rampant violation of numerous Wikipedia policies.

I originally thought that conclusion was obvious and made it a candidate for speedy delete, but DGG cleared it. I feel it's better left up to the judgment of the community at large. Markusbradley (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ARGUMENTS FOR KEEPING KENT NINOMIYA PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA

• SHOULD STAY ON WIKIPEDIA I agree with DGG that this person is indeed notable and worthy of a Wikipedia page. What Markusbradley fails to realize is that Kent Ninomiya was the first Asian American male to be a primary news anchor at an American television station. This is a significant, and so far unparalleled, achievement. The lack of Asian American men on TV news, especially as anchors, is a topic of much discussion in journalism. The Asian American Journalist Association or AAJA devotes a lot of attention to the topic. This is an important subject in journalism and the Asian American communities. The reference links are valid. They show numerous articles written by reputable publications siting Kent Ninomiya's significance, as well as information about his background and samples of his extensive writing on numerous subjects. There are no sales or commercial links as Markusbradley claims. "Kent Ninomiya Shopping" does not exist. Any spam by suspicious authors should be removed, but Wikipedia has decided that the article belongs on Wikipedia and I agree. Georgiamonet (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Humorous, but untrue. Please see [1], which I'm more than positive you operate. Markusbradley (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• WHAT IS Markusbradley's AGENDA HERE? 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) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

More sock puppets. Markusbradley (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You're breaking the flow of communication here -- please try to keep discussions threaded and in chronological order. Also, relax, there's no weird agenda and no one is freaking out over the article, it's just my opinion that it's almost pure spam and of no significant encyclopedic interest. Markusbradley (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I agree this person is not neccesarily notable UNLESS it includes his part of the controvery he was involved in, as it does on the Emily Carlson page. As the article is now, it reads like a glowing news team bio as opposed to an encyclopedia page. If Mr Ninomiya does not want the part about his alleged involvement in the Erin David WICD DUI included, he should not have made this page for himself.--Videojournalist (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While I think that the controversy should be included here, I think it needs to be reworded. Georgia was right in their comment text: "Saying Ninomiya is best known for a rumor is ridiculous." Like I told you on your talk page, you should at least change the text to make it fit; just copying and pasting from what you had on another page is unacceptable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The notability question was settled before. Ninomiya has worked all over the country and was the first Asian guy to be a main anchor. How can you say an accusation made against him in Champaign is the reason he is notable? I agree the accusation should be mentioned but it seems that someone is trying to characterize this guy's whole life based on this one thing. The sources in the article about the Davis trial are all from Minnesota. Why when it happened in Illinois? I live in Champaign and followed the Davis trial so fixed the errors I saw. I also rewrote it so it doesn't sound like a press release.

67.79.205.3 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, an article should not start with "(person) was" unless the person is dead. But that opening paragraph was awful and entirely redundant, so I reverted it. I also added sections (imagine that!) and removed a whole lot of redundant external links. We only need one link to his website, not five. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the sections are a good idea and there were too many links. There were a few more redundancies and spelling errors I cleaned up. Looks good now.

67.79.205.3 (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons Violations

The edits of Rodmon7 violate the following BLP policies:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner.

unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.

PROD

I am proposing this article for deletion for several reasons. First of all, it is full of factual errors, unsupported statements, and most of the links are to dead pages. Second, this person is no longer notable if he ever was. I know that this page was previously proposed for deletion and the result was keep, but the decision was for two shaky reasons. One claim was that he was the first asian anchor which I can't find any evidence of, and the other is his connection to the drunk driving incident. Neither of these things are particularly notable and this person apparently has not been on TV in more than 5 years. Third, this page seems to be a forum for personal attacks on this person. There are repeated attempts to advertise an unsubstantiated accusation when this person was never charged with anything. This violates the BLP policy of not repeating hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.116.229 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)