Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Wong

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 of the debate was Delete User:Blintz has been warned about his apparent repeated personal attacks in this nomination discussion. Such personal attacks and vexatious discussion are not acceptable. Although "Man Who Survived Suicide via Jesus" and "Boy Pet" are no doubt interesting roles, sufficient notability has not, in my view, been established. --++Lar: t/c 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to have a good number of "External links", and the article is more substantial than the slew of articles for porn stars that are allowed to stay (which makes Wikipedia a great porn star directory). Hong Qi Gong 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mostly on principle. See Special:Contributions/Blintz, plus strange accusations of pro-Asian bias and some seeming hostility toward the article's subject makes the AfD questionable. --Wzhao553 06:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've cleaned up the "External links" section, and nice try, Blintz, but my only bias as far as this article is concerned is that plenty of other articles on porn stars are allowed to exist with much less information. Why don't you go list them for deletion instead? Hong Qi Gong 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentBecause, Gong, I can only focus on one article at a time. Why? The obstructionism of people like you makes deleting even the most frivolous article such an ordeal that I have to neglect cleaning up the porn section until the one at hand is dealt with. By "bias" I was referring to the tendency of partisans of topics (for example, trans-sexual Malaysian deconstructionist authors) to jealously prevent even the most absurd articles under their "protection" to be deleted. Thus, I wasn't surprised that some Asian user defended the right of some other Asian to inflate his nonexistent reputation in a PUBLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. Unsurprisingly, the other user making strange accusations about "hostility" is named "Zhao." Blintz 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You're not doing yourself a favor by making those remarks and getting into those kinds of fights. The nomination stands on its own merit and doesn't need flying accusations of xenophobia to proceed. ~ trialsanderrors 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What ho, Trialsanderrors? I didn't make any accusation of xenophobia, nor did I get into any fight. I made a comment that "Gong" chose to take offense to. You'll notice that while the only accusation that I made concerned "pro-Asian bias" (a charge that, since not specifically attributable to "Gong, I addressed in a general way), you accused me of xenophobia, a far more serious matter. Don't be overzealous. Blintz 23:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Did I? Re-read my comment. The only thing I see is you making unsupported insinuations about editors' motives based on their screen names and (assumed) ethnicity. A clear WP:AGF and WP:NPA violation. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake regarding xenophobia. I meant to address your use of straw-man tactics: wildly claiming that I was making accusations of xenophobia. I'm not sure why you feel the need to delve into Wikipedia jurisprudence for this matter, but I doubt that my rather inocuous comments violate any rules. In fact, since you felt the need to imply that I wasn't acting in "good faith", consider the phrase "well-intentioned error." Even though you may have taken offense to my comments regarding ethnic partisanship, you should have noted that my efforts were well-intentioned - for the benefit of WP - so you should have assumed that I was acting in good faith. By assuming that I wasn't, you've violated the rule. And "no personal attacks"? I was merely mentioning that the user was tendentious. That's not an attack, nor is it particularly personal. Throw the book at someone else. Blintz 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't implying you didn't act in good faith, I was implying you didn't assume good faith in others. A seemingly minor but ultimately crucial difference. ~ trialsanderrors 01:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Your last comment is irrelevant. The issue of good faith doesn't even enter here, since I made no comment regarding the quality of the intentions of the author of the article or his apparatchiks. In fact, I made no assumption on the subject whatsoever. Again, your citation of the rule wasn't necessary. Are you finished? Blintz 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Read the WP:NPA policy and how you fell afoul of it, especially the part about discrediting others' opinions based on their affiliation. End of communication. ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.