Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido (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 delete. Consensus is that the subject is not reliably verifiable, and thus lacks sufficient notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Bullshido

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido (2nd nomination) is correct when s/he said that the references in the article are not nontrivial, independent reliable sources that specifically discuss Bullshido.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDojo (2nd nomination)‎ for concurrent nominations about related topics that have the same issues.

I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision:

Analysis of the sources in the article

1. http://www.international-atemijujitsu.co.uk/bullshido.html – a personal website from International Atemi Jujitsu, a martial arts club (according to its disclaimer) does not establish notability. On the same page as a brief description of Bullshido, the author of this unreliable notes, "I have a seminar coming up next week, £20 to attend. I'd like as many students as possible to be there to support the event, if you can't make it due to other commitments I'll understand. Of course those that do attend will be on the priority list for the next grading, those that don't will go to the back of the queue. Nuff said." This is not a reliable website.
2. 2-part article titled "Are you a Bullshido" from Martial Arts Professional magazine, entitled "Are You a "Bullshido?" Or, Do You Run a "McDojo?" by Stephen Oliver. Oliver, an 8th degree black belt and the CEO of National Association of Professional Martial Artists (according to this website) seems to be a reliable source. However, I cannot see how a source from an experienced martial arts teacher asking owners of martial arts schools if they are running fraudulent schools can be used to justify an article on Wikipedia.
3. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim/browse_thread/thread/883564e27c8ae0ce/e8ea4cfdf68e52ce?lnk=st&q=bullshido&rnum=12&hl=en#e8ea4cfdf68e52ce – this forum thread does not establish notability because it is an unreliable source.
4. http://www.agkk.com.au/standard/Club%20Membership.htm – dead link to Australian Goju Kai Karate Club. This website of a karate school or association of karate schools is not a reliable source.
5. http://www.theaikidocenter.com/etiquette.html – this page does not mention Bullshido.
6. http://www.hwarangdo.com/rules.htm#1i – this website does not mention Bullshido.
7. http://www.hwarangdo.com/rules.htm#2a – this page does not mention Bullshido.
8. http://www.straightblastgym.com/newbook.htm – this page does not mention Bullshido.
9. http://www.scientificwrestling.com/public/93.cfm?sd=2 – this is a dead link.
10. http://www.randi.org/jr/200509/090905these.html#2 – this page does not mention Bullshido.
11. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/wushu-meditation-in-motion.html?pagewanted=all – this page does not mention Bullshido.
12. http://ashidakim.com/pdf/sotn.pdf – this page is a dead link.

I have searched Google News Archive for sources about Bullshido but have found mostly passing mentions to the website Bullshido.net. A Google Books search returns eight results, none of which establish notability. These results are either unrelated content to, martial arts or content related to martial arts but not to the content of this article which is about "fraudulent, deceptive, or inept martial arts teaching" (the passing mention here is: "The ancient Japanese art of Bullshido").

Participants in the previous AfD suggested that this article be merged to Bullshido.net. I disagree with this solution because Bullshido.net is not a notable topic, so I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination).

This article should be deleted for failing a number of core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, namely Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms, and Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable neologism. No one is likely to recognize what the hell you are talking about if you use it anywhere expect on one website, dedicated to one community.--Savonneux (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Cunard's excellent analysis. There is nothing that we can write a policy-compliant article from. Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sigh, and again. Per Cunard, and the time he took to make a brilliant argument. The sources really do not add up to notability in the end. —fetch ·comms 02:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, comes across as a particularly forced neologism; insufficient reliable-source coverage to demonstrate notability and write an article that avoids widespread original research. ~ mazca ^talk 09:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. — Jeff G. ツ 01:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the thorough analysis of all the sources by User:Cunard. There's no way we can salvage an article out of this, and so it's time to finally put this article out of its misery. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The POV & OR bits coue be removed while leaving a viable article if people would be willing to disscuss the points not delete every word not followed by a citation, and accept that there are ridiculously few top quality source in martial arts so a few good quality ones should be able to support a stub. --Nate ^t/_c 10:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just read point two n the analyses again and the is EXACTLY my point, "However, I cannot see how a source from an experienced martial arts teacher asking owners of martial arts schools if they are running fraudulent schools can be used to justify an article on Wikipedia." Independent article by respected person discussing the topic is is not good enough for wp source HOW! What the hell is good enough their is not a Lancet for MA, Please explain why this in not a legitimate source? --Nate ^t/_c 10:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just like how in real life, no one really believes that they are the villain. Ask the fraudsters if they're doing shady dealings, and of course they're going to say they're not. Only on television do the bad guys say, "Hey, I'm the bad guy!" That's just like how Scientology will never admit that it's a cult. So you have to look at where the information is coming from. No one will self-report that they're ripping people off. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and your point is what? --Nate ^t/_c 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that no one in their right mind will explicitly say on record that they are are committing fraud (even if they are), so the source should be taken with a grain of salt. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why does this devalue the source in this context? If the line between profit and profiteering is blurry why does it matter that this guys opinion disagrees with the judgement that has been made by Cunard, what standard is he using? Or is this simply an attempt to discredit an otherwise viable source? When sources are hard work to find someone spending time tying to pick at technicalities seems very like WP:wikilawyering to prove a point. --Nate ^t/_c 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a technicality. The source is fundamentally flawed. The point is that one is not going to get useful information when one asks people to self-identify as fraudsters. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, this is a WP:NEO nomination. It is about a term in language, To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An entry on Language Log would be more appropriate for example.--Savonneux (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article disscus the use of term, and so defines it by doing so, why is not usable in this context? You can say the guy is a hipocrate but that dosen't change what he has written about the term. --Nate ^t/_c 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source at all :P. --Savonneux (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this article doesn't come close to meeting basic Wikipedia standards, and never will. As shown by Cunard's analysis, this is not a widely used term and has not received non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Thus it fails WP:V as well as WP:NEO and other guidelines and policies. *** Crotalus *** 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the hell of rhetoric please prove the statement "and never will" --Nate^t/_c 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Crotalus horridus has never said "it never will". WP:NOTCRYSTAL is the applicable policy here. Cunard (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed to "and never will"As I said it was a Rhetorical response, he is making an unverifiable assertion, see WP:NODEADLINE --Nate^t/_c 17:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given the sources (or lack thereof) that currently exist, it can never meet Wikipedia standards. Is it possible that some day a reliable source might be published that actually discusses the use of the term? Sure, and if that happens you are free to have the deletion decision revisited. But we can't keep an article on the hope that even though there are not adequate sources now, there may be someday. See WP:CRYSTAL as noted above. *** Crotalus *** 20:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; How many in the delete camp actually know of the countless contributions bullshido.net has made to debunking martial arts frauds, scams, con artists, and literally pioneering a line of demarcation between applicable forms of realistic self defense and run of the mill scam houses? The terms "Bullshido" and "McDojo" have basically been pioneered by this site and are as common as the word "Google" in the martial arts community. Bullshido is used as a constant point of reference by a worldwide audience whenever a martial arts instructor's, school or academy's credibility are questioned. I'm certain there are many pages that merit deletion on Wikipedia but a site that basically helped reshape an entire culture is probably not one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickc181 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — Nickc181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No reliable sources to verify that? Can't help you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that 'bullshido' is commonly used and has the potential to develop reliable sources. jmcw (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEO. Jmcw37's keep comment above goes against WP:NOTE which says "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the [general notability] criteria in the future". Adambro (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2010 (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.