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 s should be made to this page.
The result was below:
Whenever an article has been through three prior AFD's, a fourth will always be a contentious matter without a clean, obvious consensus, and that has held true here. The fundamental issue is does Bullshido have enough reliable, independent sources to meet the notability and verifiability standards- these do not work in isolation- just as we cannot have articles about non-notable subjects, neither can we have content that cannot be sourced.
We have 37 !votes here, so an analysis of each and every one is impractical. The nomination, however, is a very strong argument; taking a critical eye to every source that was present at the time of nomination, and explaining why it does not constitute the standard of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Mazca's point is well taken, "We cannot write an article on a topic that hasn't seen substantial coverage in reliable sources without unavoidably performing blatant original research." User:Cy Q. Faunce's vote is that the addition of one source is enough- even if we take the source added as reliable, it does not answer the other flaws raised with this article. Further, other stuff exists is not a reason to keep content if it is not up to standards.
Votes like user:jæs's and User:JJL's, though on oppesite sides, boil down to the same level of influence in my reasoning- one belives the sources are adequate, one does not. The outcome fo the AfD turns on who has the stronger arguements, not who happens to garner the most !votes. The Real Fighter source is important, but arguments about it's neutrality are well-taken. Arguments that it is centrally about Khristian Geraci and only mentions Bullshido in relation to that are also taken. To User:Nate1481's vote; that something is hard to source does not exempt it from the requirements that it be verifyable. User:Onesti's argument is that a 4th nomination is excessive, and other stuff exists; so disregarded. Articles have been deleted after a dozen nominations before; Wikipedia does not work by stare decisis, and even if it did, the last two discussions closed as "no consensus", which invites more discussion at a later date.
Examiner.com doesn't meet any of the criteria for a reliable source, thereby disregarded. Both User:Dwanyewest and User:Craftyminion cast !votes that the article should be deleted unless reliable sources can be found; these votes can be taken as an opinion that the sources presented until then do not qualify. User:Law boi99 makes another "other stuff exists" argument, this time presenting another article that has weaker sourcing than Bullshido- this is a good argument for nominating the other article, not for keeping this one. Orange Mike is correct that the history of "COI s, canvassing, s.p.a. involvement, etc.,"- whether true or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
The midpoint of this debate sees a lot of comments about other ors- AFD's are about the article under discussion- not whether the nominator or the other !voters have some agenda towards either deleting or keeping a piece of content. To User:Jmcw37- articles are not kept based on the belief that reliable sources will develop in the future- they must exist now; nor it "it's useful" a particularly convincing argument for disregarding that. Arguing that the notability guidelines are flawed is, similarly unconvincing- mountains of ink have been spilled in places like WT:N to develop these guidelines, and while they have occasional exceptions, they in general work well.
Rankings at big-boards are also not evidence of notability, and a high ranking there does not provide sufficient justification for keeping this article. The Stanford paper, written by a graduate student, is the most reliable source presented, in my mind, and even it has not been conclusively established to have been peer reviewed. There are other arguments presented- I have read and analysed them all, but my closing statement is already 6 paragraphs long- longer than most deletion discussions here.
This is a close call, and quite frankly I expect any close here to land at deletion review; but ultimately I read the consensus here is that the sources provided do not meet the standards of inclusion, so I am closing this discussion as a consensus to delete the article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Over seven months have passed since the closure of the previous AfD as no consensus. Because no sources have surfaced in that period of time, I have renominated Bullshido.net for deletion. I have asked the closing admins of both the previous AfD and the DRV for their opinion about renomination, and neitheroppose it.
1. This article from mat.uscombatsports.com mentions Bullshido.net in passing. The sole sentence in the article that pertains to Bullshido.net is: "Locked in the Cage on Saturday will be lawyer and active member of combat sports consumer advocacy group Bullshido.net Sam Browning, as well as returning friend of the show Matt “The Fight Nerd” Kaplowitz." Passing mentions do not establish notability; see also #2. 2. This article from Rocky Mountain News also mentions Bullshido.net in passing. The only time this website is referenced in this article is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." This does gives no context about Bullshido.net, save that it is a website and a man named Browning has posted on it to debunk another man's story. 3. http://www.themartialist.com/bullshidofaq.htm is written by Phil Elmore, a man who has been attacked by Bullshido; Elmore writes "The Bullshido.com FAQ incorrectly describes Pax Baculum (and, I suppose, The Martialist and me) as somehow other than "up front about the evidence that exists today."" This is not an neutral article about Bullshido.net. Having read through the article, I have concluded that it is a attack on Bullshido.net. Furthermore and most importantly though, it has not been given the orial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given. 4. http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/20060504091905/http://www.ashidakim.com/shitlist.html is the same as the fourth source. It was written by someone who has been attacked by Bullshido.net. It is a personal website by an individual called Ashida Kim (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)) has also not been given the orial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given. 5. This article from Rocky Mountain News does not even mention Bullshido.net. 6. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=28 – Bullshido.net is not a neutral, secondary reliable source for itself. 7. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/943mld/charlotte/14897513.htm – dead link to a passing mention; this article discusses the same topic as #2. 8. This article from Interpol.com does not even mention Bullshido.net.
I have done much research about this website and have been unable to find any sufficient reliable sources about it. My searches included trawling through several pages of Google results, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Yahoo!. If this site were truly notable as the above "keep" voters suggest, there should be sufficient sources about it. However, I have been unable to find any.
I am also opposed to a redirect to David "Race" Bannon. A member of Bullshido.net may have posted information about Bannon, but that does not guarantee that the website should be mentioned in Bannon's article. Having searched through results (using the search term "Banno bullshido.net"), I have been unable to locate any reliable sources that indicate that Bullshido.net played major role in debunking Bannon's claims. The best source about Bullshido.net and Banno that I could find was this article from Rocky Mountain News. The article states: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years." This passing mention that provides little context does not justify a redirect or a merge.
Delete. At the risk of repeating myself, I am with Cunard again on this. No verifiable reliable meaningful references, no notability. How this keeps squeaking through is a mystery to me. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This newspaper archive has 6 unique articles (related to debunking various claims). I think calling WP:OR might be a little overboard, there are a lot of uncited claims but the major ones hold up. Same thing can be said about most of the website articles on here (4chan, something awful, encyclopedia dramatica [which has an article on this website btw]). The only websites that tend to have regular press coverage are websites about the internet. Various niches have recognized major websites that get little coverage outside their respective communities. There is no good reliable guide to internet culture, but it's there. There are many references to it being in the top 4 martial arts websites based on traffic unfortunately I lost link in conflict.--Savonneux (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here you go. It's second in the Martial Arts, with the first being a Mixed Martial Arts-specific site, making it the largest General site. --Phrost (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, there's bits of evidence suggesting possible notability as Savonneux has pointed to - but there just isn't enough substantial coverage either to demonstrate notability, or actually write an appreciable article that's verifiable. We cannot write an article on a topic that hasn't seen substantial coverage in reliable sources without unavoidably performing blatant original research. ~ mazcatalk 23:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upon review of further sources added, I'm still not seeing any significant reliable-source coverage that actually talks about Bullshido.net rather than just mentioning it in passing. ~ mazcatalk 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, WP:WEB does not use the word "substantial". Non-triviality is the criterion. Please reacquaint yourself with policy details and reconsider your vote. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, per my comment at the last AfD and Cunard's excellent and thorough nom. To the extent there is coverage in reliable sources, it's not significant; to the extent there is significant coverage in sources, they are not reliable. Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete oh goodness, yet again. Per above, just not enough significant coverage to call it notable. Can we reach consensus this time? —fetch·comms 02:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The subject doesn't seem to have significant coverage by multiple reliable sources as per WP:NOTE. Adambro (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Addition of another reference invalidates previous concerns. Arguments for deletion would apply even more strongly to other fora, as Savonneux has noted. Also, the analysis of reference 1 is misleading; the link includes a recording of a radio show in which Bullshido was significantly mentioned. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC) — Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
A recording where Bullshido.net was mentioned in a discussion about Sam Browning does not establish notability.
The reference you added is insufficient because it is not a third-party reliable source. The bottom of the page says, "Content (c) Bullshido. By submitting information you grant a license to Bullshido and/or Creative Combat to reproduce your statement or work." The second reference you added cannot be verified. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bullshido was the central topic of a major segment of the show, as you would know if you had listened to it. Also, Sam Browning was not mentioned; he himself was a guest on the show.
The Geraci article was not intended as an external reference, but rather to establish a link between the Real Fighter article and Bullshido's work. Your objection is invalid.
According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, sources should be "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Stanford University Graduate School of Journalism article surely qualifies, especially since "[a]cademic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available". The TV spot and the Real Fighter article are also mainstream sources. All are independent of Bullshido.net. Verifiability is satisfied.
Note also that "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". If you have a hard time getting a copy of Real Fighter, you should at least suspend judgment until you either acquire a copy or contact the publisher for details. If you argue that there is no time to do that, that is an argument for no consensus until the information can be processed, not for deletion. A rush to judgment serves no legitimate purpose.
To satisfy Wikipedia:No_original_research, there are multiple citations. Even if a section lacks citations, that is an argument for improving the section or deleting only that section, not for throwing out the article.
As for Wikipedia:Notability, the Real Fighter article, the TV spot on Channel JOJ, and the Stanford article all meet the criteria: coverage is significant -- indeed, focused on Bullshido.net; possess orial integrity -- all have orial oversight, one by a PhD in journalism; all are secondary sources; all are independent of the subject.
Keep The sourcing appears adequate to me; those who would expect a Wired feature on the website to establish notability do not convince me--being cited by multiple RS'es sufficiently meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The GNG doesn't simply require brief mentions though, it requires "significant coverage in reliable sources". I don't think we have that here. Perhaps you could point out which you would feel could be described as reliable sources which have significant coverage of this subject? Adambro (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources provided in this deletion discussion all either passing mentions or unreliable sources. Please point out the significant coverage in third-party reliable sources that you believe establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, there is now a reference in the article to an academic work which discusses a Bullshido investigation at length. This work was produced under the supervision of a professor of Stanford University's Graduate Program in Journalism. The author is not affiliated with Bullshido, and indeed expresses serious reservations about its methods, but the mention in a credible academic work from a major university is surely noteworthy. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Keep adequate coverage in WP:RS as appropriate for this niche subject (martial arts fora). JJL (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please point out specific sources that establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment (moved from deletion rationale) Reference to Real Fighter article added. This article discusses Bullshido's investigation of Khristian Geraci at length, including their role in halting Geraci's attempts at faking credentials. This establishes notability and is not original research. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Comment I can't find "real fighter magazine", anywhere. Not on Amazon (which has /most/ magazines), not on B&N, and most importantly not on Newsbank/JSTOR/Gale etc. Library doesnt have it. Cant find out who publishes it... There are 3000 year old books with better availability.
I really did try to find something before I posted my earlier comment (I've never heard of this place before) and it just falls a little bit shy of notability. Even if it was keep massive sections of the article would have to be excised because there isnt much secondary information available.--Savonneux (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentReal Fighter is a major MMA magazine that I have seen carried at the major bookstores. See here: . JJL (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without a copy of the article, it is difficult to comment about whether the coverage of Bullshido.net is nontrivial and neutral. However, I have done some research about the article and have concluded that it is not a neutral reliable source.
This thread from bullshido.net includes a snippet of the text, including "the amateur investigators at the debunking Bullshido.com ... sunk their skeptical teeth into his body of work like lions working a gazelle". The tone of the article while discussing a living person is not neutral.
The OP of the thread further writes, "Thanks to Stephen Koepfer, who wrote the original Geraci article on Bullshido and gave Feinman valuable assistance in writing his article for Real Fighter." The original article is here and is a wiki page. I have serious doubts about Real Fighter being a neutral, third-party reliable source on which the Wikipedia article must rely. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sacha Feinman is not a member of Bullshido. He gave appropriate recognition to Bullshido's efforts in debunking Khristian Geraci's claims. Bullshido received no money from Real Fighter and has no stake in its ownership. Figurative language is not in itself an indication of unreliability.
Colourful metaphors wording make an article non-neutral now? Also just becase the autor agrees with one of the subjects dose not invalidate the source, it just means that you need to not it when using the source. --Natet/c 10:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete impartial analysis of the sources does not sustain any reason to keep. I looked at this in depth for DRV several months ago, I easily spent an hour or more reading the sources trying to figure out how they related to this website and WP inclusion guides. We can go without an article here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Comment Anyone passing judgment on the credibility and verifiability of the sources in the article should read its current version before drawing conclusions; two mentions in other media have been added, including an article in a nationally distributed magazine and an article from Stanford University's Graduate Program in Journalism. Additionally, those who have voted to delete should at least review those sources and reconsider their votes. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
And now there's a TV feature and an NBC Washington article in the mix. This is more real press coverage than most forums get, including those with Wikipedia entries. Those who argue that there are no notable media mentions must reconsider their votes at this time, and if they present no convincing argument for disregarding all of these mentions but do not change their vote, that would be telling, wouldn't it. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
The NBC Washington article makes no mention of Bullshido.net. It says a lot about the video but nothing about the website only linking to it. I don't really consider that could be described as "significant coverage", to quote from WP:NOTE, which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The subject of this article is clearly the website Bullshido.net but the NBC article doesn't in my view "address the subject directly in detail". Adambro (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any comment on the TV feature, the Stanford University article, and the Real Fighter article? The NBC Washington citation is just one part of the pattern. It's not huge, but it adds a bit to the evidence for notability, which at this point is so significant that anyone arguing against it should state their reasons. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
I've not commented on those because I have yet to review them. Adambro (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem quite keen to suggest that those who support this deletion nomination are not properly considering this issue. Whether that is true or not, and I've made it clear that I had yet to consider some of the new sources, it is unlikely to endear people to your cause, that you are so quick to suggest a hidden agenda or lack of proper consideration. I have now looked at the Stanford article and it does provide significant coverage of the subject. However, it isn't clear in what context it was written. I think it has been suggested that it will have been peer reviewed but how do we know that, for example? The TV feature also presents problems, not only is it not in a language I don't understand, but I also can't get a very good impression of the nature of the TV channel or the programme. That makes it hard for me to assess the TV feature as a source. As for the Real Fighter article, mthai66 has linked to the relevant sections and a few brief mentions is all Bullshido seems to get. Even without trying to assess Real Fighter magazine as a source, what we seem to have is brief mentions here and there in good, reliable sources, accompanied by more extensive coverage in more questionable sources. I'm still not overwhelming convinced that this subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per the WP:GNG. Adambro (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources"; your reluctance to look into the provenance of the Treanor article and your issues with the Slovakian TV spot are already accounted for in policy, and are considered not to be blocking objections. At the very least you need more time to deal. As for the Real Fighter article, the mention of Bullshido is at the climax of the action, and it was instrumental in exposing the details of this story.
This article is better-sourced than almost anything else in its class, and any rush to judgment suggests that the real issue does not lie in the ostensible objections being offered. Deal with whatever this isn't about and make your case. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Additionally, it is reasonable to ask people if they have read a recent version of the article, as it has seen large improvements in the last three days. Anyone citing Cunard's nom, which was written before this happened, should at least consider that their facts are not current. I'm asking for this article to be judged on its actual current merits. What reasonable person would be opposed to that? Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively, we could consider this a case where a nomination for deletion provided concerned individuals with a speedy kick in the pants and resulted in large improvements to the article's citations. Of course, such an argument must rest upon these improvements affecting the votes. Cy Q. Faunce (talk)
Delete. Significant coverage is not there, and thus no notability, I'm afraid. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're going to question Stephen Koepfer after he gave a detailed rationale, you had better be ready to answer some questions yourself. Why?Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Article is reasonably detailed but some of the info is hard secondary source (it uses vbulletin where on earth could you get a 2ndary of that?) the OR/POV could be removed without butchering all useful info from the article, but people seem unwilling to compromise, or discuss it. --Natet/c 10:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On another note the action shortly after the last AfD of removing all content and redirecting to an article that doesn't mention the site in the text delete screams "keep nomination till it gets deleted". Some sort of constructive criticism on what needed work and sources that might be acceptable to the proposers as sufficient would have been welcomed but the attitude drains any enthusiasm to improve an article they won't let stay but just keep truncating and nominating. I realise this seems jaded but having been on the other side trying to engage with ors and say "you need to do x, y & z to fix it" generally has better results than "it sucks I'll nominate it, oh it was kept lets ty again, Grr they out argued me I'll ignore it for 6 months then nominate it again". /rant This is an exaggerated characterisation, but does some up the feelings of myself and some ors involved. --Natet/c 10:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The sources are too weak for an actual article. Non-verifiable works, passing mention in marginally notable publications, and a graduate student's project just don't meet the requirements for notability or verifiability. Personally speaking, after having run into a number of these people at the now-deleted Jesus Taught Me article (formerly an even worse BLP nightmare called Bobby Joe Blythe), these people are prone to self-promotion and creating BLP-violating articles. We do not need to encourage them. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry but with "these people" are you referring to me, and every other or who expressed a "keep" opinion on mass? Either way it seams to be an assumption of bad faith on th motives of all. --Natet/c 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you assuming I'm referring to such a broad group when I've already clarified exactly what behavior I was referring to below a day before? Let me repeat and condense: I'm talking about Bullshido members coming here solely to vote 'keep' on their projects (I see two more just showed up ), create BLP-violating articles, and insert links to their site against policy. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 14:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This argument rests on an ad hominem attack against those who disagree with you. Also, an article produced under the supervision of a professor of journalism at Stanford, and held to strict journalistic standards, is not just some random grad student's project. As for "marginally notable publications", can you support that characterization with actual citations? Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
You are misusing the term ad hominem. My comments were regarding my experience of members' behavior here on WP, which is relevant because I believe it's why the article exists at all, and why it manages to keep squeaking by AfD. I have had to argue circularly against an or/Bullshido member trying to insert a BLP-violating link to that site in a now-deleted article. Their responses were continually WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT until an RFC brought in outside ors who all agreed it was not appropriate (I would link to it but the page is gone). So, personally speaking, I am not impressed with the tendency for Bullshido members to self-promote their site while simultaneously ignoring BLP and sourcing policy, nor the tendency for ors to suddenly appear and vote "keep" on Bullshido projects 
Nevertheless, my argument does not "rest" on the above. The article is extremely short on reliable sources, as I said from the outset. Passing mention in regional newspapers (Rocky Mountain News and Charlotte Observer) and a specialty news site of questionable reliability (uscombatsports.com) do not meet notability nor sourcing requirements. The student project is the closest thing, but it's still a student project, and does not establish notability. It might be barely passable as a source if it was already determined to be notable, but right now it's the one and only source that isn't self-published or only mentions Bullshido in passing, and it's, at best, equivalent to a local news article, and not national-level news. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your list of sources does not include any of the recent s to the article, and suggests that you are underinformed. Please review the recent changes and explain why they do not meet criteria. As for misusing "ad hominem", I don't agree, but perhaps there is another term for the fallacy whereby one implements policies not because they make sense, but to punish some class of people whose feelings would be hurt by them. Bad policy either way. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
As usual, the Real Fighter magazine article does not appear to be about Bullshido.com, based on the article summary from their website. Unless someone has access to the magazine and can give quotes, this appears to invalidate the article as an indicator of notability:
The Con Artist
BY SACHA FEINMAN
With UFC fights a PPV juggernaut, and MMA studios and dojos proliferating, everyone wants to get in on the act. And sometimes it is an act. Meet the new wave of mixed martial BS artist, as epitomized by the tall tales of one Khristian Geraci, whose peculiar relationship to reality creates quite a mess.
I have posted scans of the Real Fighter article on this page; they contain the relevant text. They also contain the following "That (posting) ruined my gym," sighs Geraci. "It was all over after that. The Bullshido page was, for the most part, accurate. The mistakes were mine; I let people believe things that weren't true. What I realize now is that actions and output would have been more than enough." which establishes, I think, the centrality of Bullshido.nets work in this case. Attempting to characterize the site's contribution as "trivial" when the author himself acknowledges his piece's debt to the original investigative article is disingenuous to say the least. Attempting to *simultaneously* cast the article as invalid for drawing significantly on the work of a Bullshido staffer again stretches "good faith" to the limit. The reality is much simpler: an investigative article was produced by Bullshido investigator Steve Koepfer, which became the primary source for Mr Feinman's piece in Real Fighter. Mr Feinman essentially fact checked the entire piece, and reinterviewed all of the principals personally. The information in the piece was, essentially, vetted twice: once by Bullshido.net, and once by Real Fighter Magazine. Attempting to spin this piece as biased if dependent on Bullshido.net's work, or "trivial mention" of the site for being independent of it demonstrates, I think, the mentality of some calling for the deletion. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlike most of the sources claimed, it actually has some information that could potentially be used in an article, but it still doesn't do anything to establish notability per guidelines, because it's about the instructor, not Bullshido. Your unsubstantiated claim that Bullshido supposedly was the basis for the article doesn't say much, as it's not backed up by sources. I think the fact that "Delete" votes come from ors with a variety of ing interests, while "Keep" votes are dominated by accounts created specifically for that purpose, says more. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't about the instructor, it's about what Bullshido did to him. That's a big difference. He's being used as an example of an outed fraud. And I am not a WP:SPA...nor a fan of Bullshido, incidentally. JJL (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as the foreign TV show, it's difficult to say what weight to give it. It appears to be a show specializing in weird news, but I don't see anything indicating it's significant news, much less usable as a source. I remain convinced the article should be deleted at this time. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 14:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh please, now you're just stretching for an excuse. I just mentioned that it's foreign as an identification. The point is, after quite a bit of searching, I could find nothing to indicate it's a significant show, so it could be a small, possibly regional show. Without something to tell us what it is, that's the best information we have. Either way, without a translation of the show, it doesn't help us as a source, which is what the article is seriously lacking. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm asking you not to try and dissmis a source on the grounds it's "Foreign". The something the site did got into a TV News piece, that sounds like a good way towards significant coverage. --Natet/c 08:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to not being about Bullshido, you've read a summary, I haven't got acces to ther article either but could you explain how you can know it doesn't mention (possibly at length) to the Bullshido investigation here? It's not provable either way unless we can sd,e the full article so give the person who added it the benefit of the doubt and stop tying to lazily discr sources that might undermine your view.--Natet/c 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the history of Bullshido members using articles with one word mentions or less, I think there's good reason to doubt the article's validity as an indicator of notability. In a recent example, a local news article linked to their site as a place to view a video. It does not name Bullshido or make any reference to it, yet they tried to use the article as a source . The evidence points to the article not being about Bullshido, and the history of exaggerated sources gives good reason to question it as indicating notability. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, good policy is not about punishing some class of people or violating WP:AGF. It's about improving Wikipedia. If you are actually interested in evaluating this question, instead of using it as an excuse to rush to judgment, I can probably quote a translation. However, you could then assert that I am impossibly biased and therefore mistranslating...ugh. Look, either propose a way to resolve this impasse or change your vote to reflect your lack of information. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
I reviewed the article just now and I still do not see adequate sourcing. It's not enough to say that someone, somewhere, may have published something that qualifies as a reliable source; the article must actually reflect such sources. It's been years, and the basic criterion of verifiability is still not adequately met. *** Crotalus *** 18:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"May have"? Almost all of these cites link you to the places where the items were published. The single exception is Real Fighter magazine, which does not place its content online. What do you suggest we do? Pretend this magazine doesn't exist? Even if it didn't, the TV spot and the Stanford article more than meet the criteria. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
In the interests of transparency, I would note that Phrost describes himself on his userpage as "the co-founder and Site Director for Bullshido". Adambro (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is why I went back and made sure my comments were signed, after they originally only showed up with my IP address. Which I could have easily avoided doing since I don't believe I've ever contributed to Wikipedia through this connection. Now if only some of the other people here were so forthcoming with their own agendas (such as being noted for deleting as many articles as possible, Cunard). --Phrost (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say for Cunard, he has notified peopel event if his source review is subjective, on a previous occasion and or complained that it was listed on the meartial arts related deltions becase it attracted ther wrong type of attention (i.e. "keep" options)
Keep This seems a bit rediculous, at the 4th attempt to get rid of this page. There are refences, with new ones added recently. The argument that are not good enough unfortunately could be applied to a number of Wiki articles about fora. Are you going to apply the same delete criteria to them? Onesti (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am lightly monitoring this AFD to see what's up with up and I have to agree that examiner.com almost never flies in any AfD.--Milowent (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd echo the above comments. My understanding is that examiner.com contains much user-generated content and isn't subject to adequate orial controls therefore is widely considered on Wikipedia not to be a reliable source. Hence why it is blacklisted. Adambro (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasn't aware that Examiner.com was "blacklisted", consider those retracted. Regardless, more than sufficient references now exist. If Cunard's agenda is truly to improve the article as opposed to getting it deleted (the latter of which seems to be the case based on his emphatic pursuit of such), then there really isn't much more to discuss here, and the article should stay. --Phrost (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Examiner.com is not a RS. Editorial oversight is virtually non-existant. I absolutely wouldn't consider them a RS and would argue against using them as a source. I say that as someone who gets a check from them every month. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Implying that Cunard has some kind of hidden agenda only highlights the fact that you have a very obvious one. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assumed that my agenda didn't need any clarification; it's obvious that I believe the result of the voting should be Keep. I don't think Cunard's agenda is hidden; it's simple to identify on his talk page. I'd just like him to state it for the record, especially now that the article has more than sufficient references, including coverage of the website by a European TV station's news program. --Phrost (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As with others who have taken this stance, I invite you to explain why Real Fighter, channel JOJ, and an article from the Stanford University Graduate Program in Journalism are not reliable secondary sources. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
As with others who have taken this stance, I invite you to explain why Real Fighter, channel JOJ, and an article from the Stanford University Graduate Program in Journalism are not reliable secondary sources. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Feh. A cut and paste? If you're going to ask the same question over and over, at least individualise it. Some of us like to feel special. Crafty (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make a novel error and you'll get a novel response. Screw up in the same way everyone else does, you get lumped in. Think of it as reuse if it makes you feel better.
That ors are not swayed by a non-neutral unreliable source, the project of a college student, and a local news report about an event is evident. Most of the content was written by Scb steve (talk·contribs), who states on his userpage that he is "the designated representative for Bullshido.net". The long history of promotion dating back to the article's inception and continuing today with single-purpose accounts and the founder of the website supporting its retention is also evident. That accusations of bad faith and of a hidden agenda, as well as WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, are being made point strongly to this website's lack of notability. Cunard (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at he history it seems I have around 22% of the s over double that of any other single user, I assume this means I am a have a single purpose account? If you feel able to question keep comments , questions on Deletes are not unreasonable. Steve's nomination as a representative was aimed at Bullshido, to avoid a rush of over enthusiastic wiki newbies from putting to much POV into the article after initial issues, many of which were fixed on discussion with Steve and others.--Natet/c 17:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have not demonstrated that Real Fighter is non-neutral or unreliable. Treanor's article is not "the project of a college student"; it is a product of Stanford's Graduate Program in Journalism, and was produced to journalistic standards under the supervision of a professor of journalism. As for the local news report, that alone is more than sufficient to meet notability.
Rather than mischaracterize existing citations, maybe you could explain what would meet notability criteria, and include examples from previous deletion discussions. As it is, it is impossible to distinguish your actions from those of an impossibly biased person who is pursuing an agenda that has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Keep Wikipedia also has an entry for Sherdog. Their entry is supported by mentions in three newspaper articles. In each such article, Sherdog is mentioned because one of it's officers provides a short quote of 1-2 sentences concerning the MMA world. Sherdog is not even the subject of an individual article such as the previously referred to magazine article written by the Stanford University Master's Candidate. I am not arguing for the deletion of the Sherdog entry, I am only pointing out, that unless Wikipedia decides to generally not have articles on internet bulletin boards, mentions of a particular electronic bulletin board, in the traditional media, are usually going to be in passing. It is my argument that six or so such mentions should provide enough verification of notability to keep the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Law boi99 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC) — Law boi99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
That argument would be a lot more convincing if you could show how the current article, which has seen a lot of recent improvement, fails in a way that other articles do not. Application of policy is not a question of twisting the wording to suit a purpose; precedent informs it. You show no indication of having read the recent article or of understanding Wikipedia policy at a level any deeper than blurting the names of policies you don't appear to understand. Try harder. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Keep Provided sources are adequate in regards to Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially considering that Bullshido.net is well-known in the martial arts community and provides a service to that niche industry (consumer awareness). Coverage in a nationally published magazine (Real Fighter) as well as a feature on European television are more than enough considering the size of the associated industry. Darkening (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC) — Darkening (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
I see no specific exclusions in WP:N and WP:RS which would prevent the consideration of market size when looking at the number of notable references. The threshold to notability has already been crossed with the above-mentioned magazine, television, and news reports. The fact that the martial arts industry as a whole is not well-represented in notable references would even further suggest that 2 or more notable references is more than enough for notability. Darkening (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Delete - fails to muster up the substantial coverage in reliable sources that is required. The long history of COI s, canvassing, s.p.a. involvement, etc., is sad but irrelevant to the simple continuing failure of this article to meet our standards. Arguments for retention boil down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and exaggeration of the importance of the few mentions that have been found. As for examiner.com content: the less said, the better. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word "substantial" somehow failed to make its way into WP:WEB. The standard is non-triviality, not some arbitrary standard for substantiality. Making up policy on the fly is a bad idea. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment On the Source analysis on 1, 2 & 7 Browning was investigating these in part on behalf of bullshido, and with the support of BS forum members. On 3 & 4 the wiordin of the analysis is designed to reflect badly on BS, I agree they are reactions investigations and comments should be viewd as such, but does this mean they should be labelled as "attacks"? 8 & 5 are both valid sources for what they cite and relate to events triggered by Bullshido's actions so have some merit. --Natet/c 17:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Synthesis. There is no reliable source that Bullshido was significant to the investigations mentioned in sources 2, 5, 7, and 8. It's either a passing mention or none at all. Sources 3 and 4 are still not reliable either way, and definitely do not indicate notability, as they are self-published. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the nominator's analysis of the sources cited in the article shows that the subject does not pass the criteria of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Given the sheer amount of discussion about this subject's notability, if there actually is any appropriate sourcing it almost certainly would have been found by now and added to the article. Hut 8.5 21:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every source currently listed in the article is either a trivial mention, unreliable, a primary source or doesn't even mention the subject. If you want to demonstrate notability you need more than that. Hut 8.5 08:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The TV spot and the article in KFM both rebut your claim. Please refrain from speaking in overly general terms when the evidence against your position is specific and clear. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sum total of coverage of bullshido.net in the KFM article is this phrase: "After a lengthy, complete investigation conducted by Bullshido.net revealed that none of Bannon's larger then life tales could be independently confirmed..." That's it. A passing mention in an article on something else is not significant coverage. You could plausibly use that article to argue for the notability of David Bannon, but not for the notability of bullshido.net. Now my knowledge of Slovakian TV is non-existent, but a piece in local news doesn't confer notability. Hut 8.5 11:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now that we have a KFM article which establishes notability and discusses Bullshido's investigation of Bannon in depth, that...won't change your vote because you aren't interested in the facts. Check. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There is now a reference to an article in Kung Fu Magazine's e-zine. This article was produced under contract; it was ed by Gene Ching and its author was paid. If that does not satisfy notability and verifiability, I have no idea what does. Certainly none of the votes to delete have made any specific mention of what would suffice. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
That article (link here) is actually about David "Race" Bannon, not bullshido.net, and does not qualify as "significant coverage" of bullshido.net. Also the article was written by Samuel Browning (as stated in the byline under the title), I would not consider that independent.--kelapstick (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article contains significant mentions of the Bullshido investigation of Bannon; in fact, it is largely a summary of that article. Also, you're shooting your own argument in the foot if you argue that we are not notable because our writers are solicited to produce articles under contract about our activities. Thanks for proving my case. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
The article mentions bullshido once, then it goes on to talk about how to spot people who are faking their credentials. Also the Charlotte Observer article (link here) says that Browning's investigation came out after Bannon had been arrested. And I'm not proving your case, the "I would not consider that independent" is my opinion and interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, it's a total coincidence that the author of the Bullshido article went on to write an article on exactly this subject at KFM. And talking about spotting fake credentials is talking about what Bullshido does. I don't think you are interpreting Wikipedia policy in a reasonable spirit. We'll see what the admins say. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)— Cy Q. Faunce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Comment In a nutshell, here is the problem: Bullshido.net has a virtual monopoly on the talent pool of martial arts fraud investigators. Virtually evrey experienced person is a member of the site, and virtually every piece written on the subject by a 3rd party uses the site's invstigative journalism as it's primary source, and our people as consultants. I am, for example, a staff scientist for the site. I do digital image analysis, and specialize in the detection of fraudulent credentials. To my knowledge, there is no one else (outside of other Bullshido.net staff) who has more experience with this process than myself. (note: scientific expertise established here: http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2007/042007/proteomics.shtml I am Phillips) folks voting "delete" see every attempt at establishing "notability" as circular because every person qualified in this field already works for the site. Any references offered will either have contributions from Bullshido.net membership or staff, or be "trivial" in nature in the sense that every single martial arts publication that exists is "trivial" by your definition. Fortunately for the martial arts, its relevance is determined by the public's engagement with the subject, and not by Wikipedia's ors.mthai66 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Delete. I've held off on my !vote for a while, watching this discussion progress. I believe the site has a purpose, I read it periodically myself. But I'm not convinced that it passes the notability standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment As someone who has been reading Wikipedia for a very long time, I would like to remind everyone of my favorite quote from the creators of this site "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'd like to remind you that, while I do believe it's good when people are able to look past the rules, there are still governing principles involved. If you don't like rules, that's fine, but you still need to make a reasoned argument that takes those principles into account. Ignore all rules is not an argument for keeping or deleting the article, as the opposing viewpoint can just as easily say the same thing. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 06:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think the argument has been made quite well already. I am simply pointing out that this conversation, and Sxeptomaniac's stalking of any page with a connection to Bullshido.net is making me nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki. The notability criterion was not created to suppress contributions dealing with subculture, even when they present problems with mainstream sourcing. At the end of the day, everyone involved at any significant level with the Martial Arts knows what Bullshido.net is, what it does, and what it is for; the site is consistently ranked at #1 or #2 for traffic in category (General Martial Arts), and the investigative output is consistently referenced by sources seeking to cover fraud cases in the Martial Arts. Using the Notability criterion to construct an artificial argument for the site's irrelevance violates the spirit of the rule. I suggest any critic interested take a look at the entry on Ogre_(game), possibly the most enduringly popular and influential of all SF themed wargames, and apply the criteria being used here to the references cited there. Are you truly operating in good faith, or are you expressing an implicit value judgement as to the importance of various subcultures (in this case MA and Wargaming) with similar levels of interest among the general public? Again, please direct your attention to WP:systemic bias .
Stalking...really? You're scraping the bottom of the barrel in attempts to discr critics. I was pulled into the Bobby Joe Blythe article due to requests to look into the WP:BLP issues that Bullshido members were attempting to keep in through canvassing and ignoring policy. I was then pulled into a previous Bullshido.net AfD due to the direct connection. I have an established history of getting involved in contentious BLP situations. I have no interest in stalking you people, and really hope to go back to ing interesting articles once this is done.
Bullshido members keep having all these extravagant claims for how important their site is, and how various investigations were due to their work, but they have yet to come up with the sources to back up their claims. The best they have so far is a couple of mentions in an article about a discred instructor. Problem is, Notability guidlines for web sites specifically call for multiple published sources about the site, in order to ensure there is enough information for a real article about the subject without resorting to original research. So far, not one of these supposed sources is a published article about the Bullshido site.
You can throw around your claims that MMA fighters are some kind of oppressed, underrepresented group, but basically, I think the lack of evidence for your claims easily points to your site just not being as important as you like to think it is. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This conversation has noting to do with "MMA fighters" except in so far as they are martial artists of one kind or another. Do you believe the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Symbolic_Logic and their pubication "Journal of Symbolic Logic" are reliable sources on the topic of Formal Logic? Can you produce a reliable 3rd party source that is *about* either entity? Shall we nominate that page for deletion? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether or not other articles should exist is a separate issue. Go ahead and nominate it for deletion if you feel the article doesn't belong, but be aware that doing it solely as an attempt to prove a point is strongly discouraged. A quick Google search finds that the journal is academically reviewed, so will probably be found sufficiently notable and a reliable source, though the article itself is currently not sourced well. Meanwhile, Bullshido members dig up every obscure reference they can find yet still fail to find anything that meets notability guidelines. This is a much better example of what WP:Systemic Bias is about: non-notable web groups have a stake in promoting themselves on WP, while truly notable academic organizations are likely not to care much. They don't need to promote themselves on WP, as they are already notable, while Bullshido members fight tooth-and-nail, because they are not. As a result, your comparison does not hold water, as they are completely different situations. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your hypothesis that our interest in this page is motivated by self-promotion is just that, an hypothesis. And a false one IMO. I can not speak for others, but I found your past arguments against Bullshido.net's reliability as a source to be personally and professionally insulting, as the work linked to in the Jesus Taught Me thread (by a non-member I believe) was substantially my own (along with Messrs Browning and Koepfer). IIRC your objection was that our work is not subject to orial review, which is patently false. Your personal lack of interest in the subject is not a basis for the deletion of the article. I have spoken with the Graduate Program in Journalism at Stanford, and they confirm what any reasonable person would assume: that articles hosted on the program website are serious, citable products of the university; in this case candidates for a terminal degree (and not "college student projects" as was cynically stated earlier). I am involved in this debate, not because there is an attempt to delete a wiki article that has some visibility; I am involved because there is an attempt to do so by discring the reliability, influence, and objectivity of what is *inarguably* the most prominant, most thorough, and most widely read work on the subject that exists. Find a single reference indicating that there is another, better source to be found on the topic of consumer protection in the Martial Arts industry. I suspect you will be unable to. Granting the site's leading position in the field, the only argument left for deletion is that the subject itself is not of interest to the public. It would be interesting to see such an argument supported in a responsible manner. Please proceed. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That Bullshido is or isn't the leader in the field is irrelevant. How we determine whether a topic merits an article is according to the notability guidelines. When many new users turn up apparently only to oppose the deletion, it is plainly obvious that they are doing so because they have a bias in favour of the topic. Adambro (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mthai66, I'll say that appears that you've responded as both Mthai and 126.96.36.199 based on this diff: . Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I noticed that and will try to avoid that in the future, I had 'remember me' shitched off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthai66 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your invocation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not address the real point: Removing an entry for the "Journal of Symbolic Logic" would violate common sense, even if it can be justified by a myopic reading of the guidelines and a lot of distortion. This is one reason why WP:IAR exists -- in order to prevent people with obvious grudges and no real focus on improving Wikipedia from abusing policy in order to pursue an irrelevant agenda.
Using the existence of a group of Bullshido members who are dedicated enough to improve the article and argue for its inclusion as an argument for non-notability is WP:GAME taken to its limit.
An interest in the quality of Wikipedia would lead one to applaud the sourcing improvements to the article, or to suggest specific types of sourcing that would be acceptable, along with references to establish that the criteria are well-supported by precedent and not just arbitrary barriers which few reasonable topics could pass. I've asked you to do that. If you don't, that's telling us something right there. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Inarguably"... You say that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. If the word applied, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Asserting something as a fact without evidence does not mean we will accept it as fact. In reality, it's just the opposite. If you guys are fraud investigators like you claim, you should realize why we are not going to just accept as fact your claims to importance, review process, etc. We rely on secondary sources about the subject of the article because we need solid sources anyone can check. Without that, we have original research, which, in a setting like WP, is prone to manipulation.
Notability is not a hard-and-fast rule, but it does help draw the line between subjects we have sufficient sourcing on (and will continue to have sources for), and those we do not. Currently, without even a single published article about Bullshido, the article falls far short of the line.
All that said, this page has been a circular argument for the past couple of days, and I should have disengaged at least a day ago. Barring any major developments I'm going to leave this alone and avoid further adding to the crap the closing admin will have to wade through. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, what's unfortunate is that a pack of ors with past grudges against this article and its ors are rushing to judgment regardless of recent and undeniable improvements thereto. Your emphasis on punishing the group of people who care about the article is something I've already noted at length, but your disingenuousness in this regard floors me. It's the fourth nomination, the article is stronger than it's ever been, you fail to address this fact meaningfully, and you wonder why we're offended?
In any case, your demand for an article about Bullshido is a misstatement of the policy on trivial coverage as stated by WP:WEB. The tendency of the lynch mob to do this in the discussion is telling me something. I hope the admins see that you're lying about the policy and weigh your incredibly apparent bias accordingly. If not, it will be the quality of Wikipedia that suffers, not us. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No lie. "Web-specific content is deemed notable based on ... the following criteria. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." From WP:NOTABILITY.
"Subject: noun 2. What a speech, piece of writing, or artistic work is about: argument, matter, point, subject matter, text, theme, topic."
And the Kung Fu Magazine article is about what other investigation of David Bannon? Did Sam Browning investigate him twice? And the Cage Radio interview -- what did you hear them talk about? You're misstating the facts. In any case, you've never addressed the issue of "trivial coverage" as defined in WP:WEB, and thus are definitely misstating policy, if only by omission. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. I have !voted to keep this in the past, but upon further consideration maybe the sourcing isn't as great as I thought it was. I would like to see more in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to justify the existence of this article. Perhaps such coverage will turn up at a later date. Perhaps not. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd appreciate knowing if you have evaluated the recent changes to the sourcing, which extend it well beyond Cunard's summary in the nom. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So how did Real Fighter, the TV spot, Kung Fu Magazine, and the Stanford University article fall short? I'd be especially interested if you could cite specific policies, especially the wording of "trivial coverage" in WP:WEB. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[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. nickc181 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — Nickc181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
To answer your question, I made it clear in my delete !vote that I "believe the site has a purpose, I read it periodically myself". But just because WP:ILIKEIT doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So let me ask you the following question: do you think that the site is actually "notable" in the standard sense of the word? Do you, based on your personal knowledge and experiencebelieve that in the Real World, people who are interested in the Martial Arts know what Bullshido.net is, and what uses it has for that community? I know the standard definition of "notablility" is not in play here, but it goes to a philosophical issue I have with this entire debate. There is a difference, IMO, between favoring Verifiability over Truth (which is IMO extremely reasonable), and being at war with Reality.Mthai66 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you've never read WP:TRUTH, you owe it to yourself to take the 2 minutes to do so. It's frustrating sometimes, but it's how things are. I've had to !vote keep for crap that I hate it the "real world" and !vote delete for things I liked. But it's not about what I like or dislike as much as whether it meets the standards or not. Bullshido.net has a place in the MA world and it has established itself in that niche. All this effort being expended over a Wikipedia article that won't help or hurt the site kind of puzzles me. Let's be real about it, whether this articles gets deleted or kept, Bullshido probably won't change one iota. When you go to Google and type in "Bullshido", the site comes up before Wikipedia every time. That means anyone searching for you or that term is going to get your site or your definition of the term before it gets the one here. You've coined the term, it's in your URL and the title of the page. You pretty much own it. What in the world will having this article kept do for the site? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you read WP:NPOV? It's one of the founding cornerstones of Wikipedia and it is also the core of Bullshido investigations. The neutral, fact-based and open-minded approach to the Bullshido investigations is what have made the website the gold standard in rating martial arts instructors. I like to think neutrality is what made Wikipedia as popular as it is as well. Bullshido has more than just a role in the martial arts community, it is the de-facto resource for academy and instructor ratings and analysis. The criteria for deletion presented here does not override the overwhelming amount of credible, time-based evidence of Bullshido's role in shaping the modern martial arts landscape. I fail to see how a website that has this much weight and importance in the martial arts community worldwide does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I'm happy to expand this conversation with a myriad of inclusions that currently live on Wikipedia untouched, that should not be here. This is clearly not the case. nickc181 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Nickc181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other s outside this topic. Reply[reply]
With all respect, you're changing the subject from notability to benefit. You might want to re-read some policies yourself, such as the definition of trivial coverage I've provided below. I see no obvious sign of your having taking the actual definition and the actual current sources into account. If you did, I'd appreciate an explanation; if you didn't, I ask you to reconsider. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I address the question Mthai asked me about my personal opinion. Don't confuse that with my !vote and why I voted that way. I didn't change the subject and I don't need to re-read the policies.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, actually, you might want to. As noted below, the standard for "trivial coverage" is not what some of the ors here are falsely arguing it is. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm trying to be polite about it, but to be blunt, 2 SPA's telling a large number of experienced ors that contribute to a wide variety of topics really doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. As I said in my original vote, I waited a while, read all the discussion and made a decision. No amount of partisan prodding will change that, only significant coverage would. 01:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Addressing the person rather than the policy is a pretty basic logic fail. I am arguing that the recently added coverage is significant. It is not included in Cunard's nom, and it merits a look, along with the actual wording and intent of the policies.
Your reluctance to consider the facts and policies head-on should probably let the admins know how to weigh your vote. Bluntly. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't address the person and not the policy. I addressed your comments about what you and your clone said about my need to re-read the policy. I'm not reluctant to consider the facts (I said significant coverage could change my mind) or policies (others have addressed you at length about them already, no need to duplicate them). The closing admins have enough history to judge my vote by. I'm not worried. However, now that you've resorted to distorting what I said,I should probably stop conversing with you. They say tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell and have them looking forward to the trip. I don't have much tact, so further appropriate response options are becoming limited. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, at this point you're exclusively addressing persons and not policies ("clone"? Thhppttt). Even the reference to SPA's was a bit over the top, given that we have also contributed significant improving s to the article under discussion. But, hey, don't let the facts get in your way; keep claiming that you'll consider the significance of sources while never actually doing it. That'll work! Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment? Clearly, you don't understand the term. Am I responding to individuals (or one individual pretending to be more than one)? When they make specific, unfounded allegations or ridiculous comments, yes. Calling you a SPA is over the top? LOL. Maybe you aren't familiar with the concept of calling a spade a spade. Damn I wish I had some tact to spare. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If your thoughtless slurs added any value to this conversation, I'm sure I'd find a better way to characterize them. As for the insinuations of sockpuppetry, an IP address check would suffice to disprove that. I think he's in Cambridge and I'm definitely in Minneapolis; can you explain the physical process by which I am both people? Either consider the actual references and the actual policies or don't. Your vote will be weighed accordingly, I'm sure. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cy is Cy and I am me. I am in Arlington MA. My name is Matt Phillips. One very obvious difference between Cy and myself is that he knows what an SPA is, and I do not. Also, FTR to those that pointed out to me that soliciting the presence of an exprienced member of this community to participate in this discussion might be seen as "canvassing", I requested his participation because of his detailed knowledge of both communities, not to vote a certain way. Mthai66 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COMMENT When I woke up this morning I did not realize that I was an Inclusionist. It feels good to put a name to it. Can some kind soul please point me to the appropriate venue to suggest a modification to the Notability definition? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any suggestion like that from an IP user like yourself is going to over like a ton of lead bricks. But If you'd like to learn more about how to source and improve articles, you could check out the Article Rescue Squadron.--Milowent (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me, I forgot I wans't logged in. Thank you for the information and the vote of confidence. What I actually want to know is where might I find the correct venue to discuss problems with the Notability definition itself. Or is that on the Meta somewhere?Mthai66 (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a time in the early days of the project when whether articles had to be "notable" to remain was widely debated, and a significant number of ors, including Jimbo Wales, did not think notability (often called "importance" at the time, circa early 2004) should be required, see, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Fame and importance. One view was that "verfiability" and neutral point of view was really the key requirement for inclusion. Indeed, even in mid-2006, pages like the proposed guideline stored at Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Importance still stated that "Some Wikipedians hold that articles need to be of sufficient importance to be included in Wikipedia." and "Many Wikipedians do not consider importance a necessary qualification - see the poll Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance which failed to win consensus." In the fall of 05 there was a vigorous debate of whether any "notability" requirement should be deleted, see, Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Brainstorming#Remove_notable_requirement. I don't think there was ever a strong consensus for notability, but those in favor of the requirement slowly won out and the concept as a requirement is now rarely debated. What it really means is where the debate has shifted.--Milowent (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notability does enjoy strong community support. There was an RFC on the subject last year, and it closed with a clear consensus that notability should remain a guideline. Hut 8.5 11:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the link, Hut, I was not aware of that and its not always easy to find all the relevant discussions. I find it interesting that the proposal to make WP:N a policy, like WP:V, instead of a guideline was rejected.--Milowent (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think it might be useful to quote the definition of "trivial coverage" from WP:WEB, in order to prevent ad-hoc definitions from being used:
Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
Note what this doesn't say. It doesn't require that the subject of the Wikipedia article be the primary subject of the source of the mention. It doesn't require that the website be described in intimate detail. It is designed to avoid references to the URL only, to brief general statements of the nature of the site, or to automatic aggregators.
The Real Fighter article does not fall under this definition because it references specific activities undertaken by Bullshido that were relevant, indeed central, to the subject of the article. The TV spot doesn't fall under it either. Certainly the Kung Fu Magazine article exceeds this criterion.
Any vote to delete which does not address these points directly and in detail, with reference to the details of Wikipedia policy rather than just blurbs, is not adding anything informative to the discussion. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "trivial mention" being referenced is not in regards to WP:WEB, it is in reference to the general notability guidelines, which relates to all articles, regardless of their subject, (the section called "Significant coverage", significant as opposed to trivial), which says:
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
For clarification, the people advocating deletion believe that none of the sourced address bullshido.net directly in detail. I just read the Real Fighter article again, it is absolutely not addressing bullshido.net directly in detail, the Kung Fu Magazine is not directly addressing bullshido.net either, neither are the Charlotte Observer or the Rocky Mountain one. If you disagree and think that they do address the website in detail, that is your opinion, but like you said earlier, it is for the admins to decide.--kelapstick (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And "trivial mention" is expanded under WP:WEB, and is the applicable standard for deciding significance in this case. I notice you also ignore the TV spot. The KFM article is a summary of the Bullshido investigation of Bannon and the lessons learned thereby, by the author of the Bullshido investigation. You are making up policy definitions to suit your current argument rather than reading the actual policy. I suspect the admins will not be quite as slapdash. If you want to convince them, you'll have to do better, I think. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless the TV show in question is available on DVD, a web site, or some other persistent medium, it violates WP:V. If it merely aired once (and in a foreign country at that) we can't verify it and pretty much have to take the word of whoever said they saw it. *** Crotalus *** 17:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Where I come from there is nothing more notable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal) . I believe you will be hard pressed to find anything about the journal in the public sphere, beyond brief mentions of it as it is cited as a source. I believe you will find the Wikipedia article on the journal suffering from the same kind of problems mentioned here. Why? Because Nature is a news source, and people don't write very many pieces in which a news source is the subject. IMO there is not a thing wrong with the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal) ; it is Wikipedia's policy that is a bad fit to entities like Nature (and Bullshido.net). No one is ever going to do a feature piece on Bullshido.net, even if the site is used as a source for the NYT, CBS News and Science magazine all in one year. It is a news, research and information *source*, not *topic*. The presumption that everything of note will eventually be written *about* (as subject) is IMO false. Sometimes convention dictates that the mention be brief (if it exists as all), as is often the case with information sources. For example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACEW_enUS299US300&q=WikiGenes&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn . --Mthai66 (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick perusal of Google Books turned up several sources that actually do discuss Nature at some length, not merely cite it.
Scientific American, Volume 182 - Page 46; The Advancement of science, Volume 2 - Page 326;
Essays of an information scientist, Volume 5 - Page 264. Unfortunately, most of these are just snippet views, but it is enough to tell that the journal itself is being discussed. This was found in under 5 minutes and I have no doubt serious academic sources on this issue could be found (I would start by searching JSTOR for relevant papers on the history of science). This is a very poor comparison since no one cares about Bullshido or has ever published anything substantive about it. *** Crotalus *** 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
clearly it can't be said that "no one cares about Bullshido" or else we wouldn't have this TL;DR AfD.--Milowent (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom, there's just not enough significant secondary sources to establish notability. I would support userfying the page while other sources are sought, if the site becomes more notable. Dayewalker (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COMMENT RE: RF ARTICLE My name is Stephen Koepfer and I wrote the original Bullshido article/investigation on Geraci. I wanted to share my account regarding how the RF acticle came into being, since my name has come up here. Sacha Feinman, a noted journalist http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sacha-feinman/17/400/976 contacted me about writing an article about Geraci. He was, as any good journalist would be, concerned with not simply regurgitating our investigation. However, reading my article, he felt it was well written, ivestigated, etc. He felt it would be a good springboard for further investigation. So, I provided all my sources to Feinman. He vetted the entire Bullshido piece, found it to be verifiable, and continued to investigate the case in further directions which Bullshido had not covered. As Feinman noted himself it was the Bullshido article which formed the basis for his own further investigation. Feinman and I did not collaborate on his article, other than my making introductions to sources and the subject, Geraci. Feinman was not paid by Bullshido, nor is he even a member of the site. He came to us because of our notability. I fail to see how the RF article, regardless of how much or little it sepcifically mentions Bullshido in print, could not be considered a notable reference for Bullshido. Our ivnestigation served as the springboard for his, he came to us because of our notability, he personally stated this as such, and the subject of the investigation itself (Geraci) is quoted in the RF article as saying the Bullshido investigation was accurate. If this does not offer proof of Bullshido's notability, the standards of notability must be examined for flaws IMO. Americansambo (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Contrary to what has been stated previously, people do care about Bullshido.net, and everyone in the industry knows that the site is where you go if you have an investigative question pertaining to the martial arts. It is common knowledge, and knowledge that no one has thought to put into print. As to the Nature example, being deliberately obtuse is not helpful. Yes, I know that Bullshido.net is not Nature. That is a matter of degree. Nature suffers fom the same tendency to get "just snippet views", and its Wikipedia article suffers greatly from the same paucity of good references. And this is for one of the most famous and respected journals in the world. The problem lies (IMO) neither with Nature itself, or with the article as written, but with Wikipedia's criteria which is ill suited to vetting information *sources* for Notability. Surely Bullshido.net, or any other smaller information outlet, need not rise to the level of fame associated with a source like Nature before common sense overides the desire to delete articles. --Mthai66 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That reminds me of the time someone told me regarding something on Wikipedia that it's common knowledge and thus doesn't need to have sources. Common knowledge has been known to be incorrect, and that's why we need to verify. You all claim that Bullshido.net is the go-to source on shady martial arts practices, and if that's the case, reliable sources should bear that out. But apparently there are no reliable sources for this... thus we can't verify, and must delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We all claim". Hm. That's true, and it's not just committed members of Bullshido.net. In fact, every nominally experienced martial artist in this discussion has said they know of Bullshido and check it out at least once in a while. I don't doubt you have not visited it much, but I strongly suspect you're not a martial artist.
Your attitude that we "must delete" is both dogmatic and in violation of the spirit of Alternatives to deletion. You have done nothing to contribute constructive content to the page; indeed, almost none of the naysayers have done so. This is not unreasonable, since they are mostly not knowledgeable about the subject matter, but it calls into question whether you and many others can reliably assess the notability of the site or the relevance of the references. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While it's preferable, no one has to be "knowledgeable about the subject matter" to Wikipedia or comment on discussions. That's why sites should be notable through reliable outside sources. This isn't a martial arts wiki, it's a general encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's nice, but to evaluate the relative prominence of Real Fighter or to follow the article on Kung Fu Magazine, it's helpful to know at least something about the subject matter. The comments dismissing the significance of these references indicate that the commenters don't actually know much about the subject. If they did, they'd know that every paragraph in either article that addresses fraud detection is discussing Bullshido's work. As Mthai66 demonstrated elsewhere, we are the authority in that area. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, let's address this "must delete". Where does it say that you must? A lot of the policies and guidelines being cited are pretty generally worded, and none mandate the deletion of a particular article on indisputably measurable grounds. Your position may be to delete by default, but that's not the way to build consensus, not the way to improve Wikipedia, and not the way to improve the article. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Ben, you are not stupid. Surely there must be *some* "go-to source on shady martial arts practices". See if you can find it. --Mthai66 (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You still seem to be missing the point. How we establish whether something is "notable" enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia is by reference to the notability guidelines, the primary question being whether the topic has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". There seems to have been attempts to justify keeping this article on the basis that its subject is the most notable website in its field. That may be true but it doesn't automatically mean there should be an article about it on Wikipedia. Adambro (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am certainly not the first person in the history of this project to point out that notability guidelines is flawed. Arguing from those guidelines to the irrational conclusion that an entity that actually *is* notable deserves exclusion, ought to show you quite clearly how and why notability guidelines contains serious flaws. And beyond that, you know it was never intented to be used to exclude entries on subjects that are *objectively and demonstrably* notable by reasonable means not included in that definition. The Google metric given above is just as objective, if not more so, than some piece in print media expounding on the fact that Bullshido.net is synonomous with fraud investigation in the martial arts. I have already demonstrated this fact. It seems to me that all that needs to be shown is that the subject of debunking false claims in the Martial Arts is, itself, "notable". I'd like to think I don't have to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism to make the point. --Mthai66 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The notability guidelines aren't flawed. You certainly aren't the first person arguing against a deletion to say that the guidelines and policies under which the deletion is being proposed are flawed and you certainly won't be the last. The whole concept of establishing notability by identifying significant coverage by reliable sources ensures that at the very least basic information about the subject can be verified and considered to be reliable. If even finding enough reliable sources to establish notability is a problem it suggests that finding suitable sources for information about the subject will be very difficult and that is an important concern. The number of Google hits or the apparent reputation a website might have in a particular community is all very interesting but it doesn't provide a reliable source that can be cited in the article. If we took such factors as primary in considering whether a subject warrants and article we'd end up with many more articles yet they'd be lacking proper sources to verify what they say. Wikipedia articles really only become useful when there is a nice list of reliable sources at the end of the article which a reader can use to verify what it says. If you wish to argue that the notability guidelines should be changed then WT:NOTE is the place to do it. In the meantime, they are clear in requiring significant coverage in reliable sources and the focus therefore of these discussions for those who think this should be kept should be trying to demonstrate that those guidelines are satisfied. Adambro (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is all well and good, but my point all along has been that this argument violates the spirit of WT:NOTE, whose intention (and correct me if I am wrong) is to ensure that trivia is excluded from the encyclopedia. Aesthetic attatchment to "nice lists" is irrelevant. I can demonstrably show that expositions of fraud in martial arts business and practice satisfy the letter of WT:NOTE, and I can demonstrably show that the website Bullshido.net is virtually synonomous with such exposition. In any rational venue, that would suffice. Would you require certain types of references establishing that the Internet exists for the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet? Would you do so *using said Internet* to store and share such an opinion? If you can not see the violation of good faith involved in that, I will be hard pressed to proceed. --Mthai66 (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it extraordinary that you consider my appreciation of "a nice list of reliable sources at the end of the article which a reader can use to verify what it says" to be irrelevant. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy which is so key in what Wikipedia is trying to do that it is one of the five pillars. My argument, that it needs to be demonstrated that there is significant coverage of this subject in reliable sources certainly doesn't "violate the spirit of WT:NOTE", it is literally what that guideline asks for. Another fundamental and "non-negotiable" policy is WP:NPOV. When it is obvious that a great many of those who have voted "keep" in this discussion have significant links to the website, I have to assume that the article is also ed by such people. That makes it even more important that there are proper reliable sources such that it can be ensured that the article is written from a neutral point of view. Proper reliable sources are not something that are nice to have, they are a necessity. Adambro (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In seeking a rational foundation for a position (in this case, that Bullshido.net is Notable) appeals to "(p)roper reliable sources" are certainly sufficient. But they are not *necessary* when other types of information exist. In this case I have appealed to meta-information about the internet to show that such notability is actually the case. It is easily linkable in an article, as I have also shown. Do you intend to ride rough-shod over every entity that best demonstrates its notability through persuasive, if creative, means? I believe there is a principle of following the spirit of rules in play here. I hope you will note that I have never contributed to the article on Bullshido.net, and that I have not even voted "Keep". --Mthai66 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is important to recognise that "notability" in the general sense and Wikipedia's concept of notability aren't the same . As the guideline says, Wikipedia's concept of notability "does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". It is not satisfactory therefore to argue that Bullshido.net is widely known about in the martial arts community or that there are a high number of Google hits for it. The fundamental point to understand is that Bullshido.net may be "notable" in the general sense but yet not meet the general notability criteria on Wikipedia. I would not accept "creative" means of demonstrating notability for any subject. Verifiability, and that means proper reliable sources, is not some obsession with the obscure details of various policies and guidelines, it is central to the whole project. Disregarding the requirement for proper sources is the complete opposite to the spirit of the notability guideline. As I've said, it spells out that fame, importance, or popularity are not the key considerations. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable" is the second sentence. Your argument seems to be that we should disregard the general notability guidelines and that quite obviously would go against the spirit of those guidelines and, at the same time, the fundamental policy of verifiability. Adambro (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I believe that 'bullshido.net' is notable to martial artists and that its inclusion improves wikipedia. I further believe that it has the potential to develop reliable sources. I do not expect the same quantity/quality of references for martial arts that I would expect for Artistotle. jmcw (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my comments above, whether the website is notable in its field is not relevant, whether it has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" is what is important here. You say that you "believe that it has the potential to develop reliable sources", but is their "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" now? That this has been nominated for deletion on a number of occasions with similar concerns suggests that we might have to continue to wait a while. We have to draw a line sometime and should delete this until such time as these reliable sources do actually emerge. As per WP:NOTE, "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the [general notability] criteria in the future".Adambro (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
jmcw's comments were speculation. "I further believe that it has the potential to develop reliable sources" really does seem to be a suggestion that if we wait long enough some decent sources might turn up. Who knows? That might happen, it might not. jmcw seems to accept in making that suggestion that there aren't reliable sources now and WP:NOTE makes it clear that we should wait until there are before making an article. I'm well aware of WP:IAR. I'm pretty sure that the community would agree that it doesn't mean when the article about a website you're associated with or a fan of is nominate for deletion that you can disregard the fundamental policies and guidelines to argue it is kept. Adambro (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I see in the delete arguments is wiki lawyering. Martial arts do not receive money for research as do medicine or other sciences. Bullshido.net is the one of the best resources to martial artists trying to determine what it real in martial arts - it serves the function of peer review. Bullshido.net is notable to martial artists but the article does not yet meet the strictest of wiki standards for notability. I stand by my comment above 'its inclusion improves Wikipedia.' jmcw (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is actually the case that 'its inclusion improves Wikipedia' may we reach an understanding that a stay of execution be rendered while attempts are made to close the gap between the quality of the article at present and what it needs to be to remain a part of the Encylopedia? If it is not objectionable, I will see about making those changes myself. It may be as simple as Bullshido.net beginning the practice of issuing press releases when important information is developed by the site. SOmething that is not done at present. --Mthai66 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe a "stay of execution" would be appropriate. The article has been nominated for deletion enough times that those interested in developing it should have been well aware of the concerns and have had plenty of time to try to address them. Again, WP:NOTE says that articles should only exists once the notability criteria are met, not on an assumption that they will be some unknown point in the future. Therefore, if the consensus is that it doesn't meet the criteria it should be deleted. If at some unknown point in the future developments mean that it would meet the criteria then it can be recreated. I have no objection in principle to there being a Wikipedia article about this subject providing the appropriate policies and guidelines can be complied with. Adambro (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Regarding notability: I notice that practically every article in the list of social networking sites is sourced much less than the Bullshido.net article. I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but let's not forget WP:AFDP: "The fact that it's 'only' a common outcome is not sufficient grounds to ignore the accumulated weight of Wikipedia's daily practice." This isn't just a common outcome; it's the overwhelming standard.
I notice that not one argument in favor of deletion has referenced a single precedent, much less a body of precedents. They mostly consist of selective quotes from Wikipedia standards, or just blurting out the names of the standards. That's not reasonable. It's just wikilawyering, and bad wikilawyering at that.
I hope the closing admin takes the actual weight of Wikipedia precedent into account, rather than the selective and incomplete invocations of isolated policies. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to argue that the notability guidelines are flawed or inapplicable is not going to persuade the closing administrator. They enjoy wide consensus and support from amongst ors, and they are routinely applied. Something like 4-5000 articles are deleted a month through WP:PROD and WP:AFD, and most of these are deleted as the result of notability or sourcing problems. Wikipedia doesn't have "precedents", there's nothing to stop the community deciding that an article meets the notability guideline one week and then deciding it doesn't the next. (Indeed if we did have precedents it would increase the wikilawyering you claim to despise.) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists for a reason: this is a discussion about bullshido.net, and the notability of unrelated social networking websites has no relevance whatsoever. For what it's worth there is nothing stopping you from nominating any of those articles for deletion. Hut 8.5 20:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to ignore facts that don't support your argument in favor of ones that you can twist to your purpose shouldn't convince them either. WP:AFDP is clear: "Precedents are useful guides to the practical implementation and interpretation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The fact that it's 'only' a common outcome is not sufficient grounds to ignore the accumulated weight of Wikipedia's daily practice." In any case, I am not arguing that the notability guidelines are flawed or inapplicable; I am arguing that the interpretation you and several others are putting on them is arbitrary, contrived, and overhwhelmingly unsupported by precedent in the relevant space of articles. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:AFDP is not a policy or guideline. It does not follow community support, and there is no reason why we should follow its pronouncements. That page exists to document a number of previous discussions on the notability of specific examples of articles, such towns and villages. Bullshido.net doesn't fall under any of them, and that page doesn't have any relevance here. Wikipedia decisions are made based on consensus, which can change, and there is no such thing as a binding precedent here.
This article is not being treated any more harshly at AfD with respect to the notability guidelines than any other. It is entirely routine for articles on websites, organisations, people etc to be deleted for failing the notability guidelines. (If you doubt this, have a look at some AfD logs.) The fact that there exist other articles which may well fail AfD if subjected to it in no way disproves this. Hut 8.5 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So on the one hand you claim that precedent has no bearing, and on the other hand you invoke it -- without any examples, of course. It is telling that not one of your arguments references any specific fact, especially those involving the recently added references, or any applicable precedent.
The wikilawyering on this article could be applied to practically any article. Each reference can be disparaged on specious grounds, and thus there are no references, and the article should be deleted. What a way to improve Wikipedia! Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not invoking precedent, I am invoking policies and guidelines. These are not the same thing. (An argument relying on precedent would be something like "we deleted the article on Martial Arts Forum X, therefore we have to delete this article as well".) Your claims I have not addressed the referencing are simply untrue - in my reply to you above I pointed to specific reasons why given references do not establish notability. It is also not true that it is impossible to meet the notability guidelines. If you can point to a reference which isn't written by bullshido.net, dicusses bullshido.net in detail, and meets the requirements of WP:RS (that includes most non-local newspapers, books from respected publishers, academic journals, etc) then the article will be kept. Hut 8.5 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This article is not being treated any more harshly at AfD with respect to the notability guidelines than any other." invokes precedent and provides no evidence. Your first statement is demonstrably false; you did nothing to demonstrate its truth. For someone who doesn't buy a multitude of magazine articles, a radio spot, and a TV spot, the latter two of which indisputably center on Bullshido's work in various areas, you are quite reluctant to prove any of your claims.
As for the detail of the discussions, exactly how much did you know about the Bannon investigation before you read the KFM article? Probably not much, unless you also read the Bullshido.net article. The Cage Radio interview has a lot of detail as well. You did review those, didn't you? I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora. ;) Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(outdent) To address your points one by one:
I advised you to look at some other AfDs because you are a new or with very little experience of the deletion process, as has become obvious from some of your responses here. It is possible that due to your lack of experience you think that deleting articles because of the notability guideline (in other words, applying the notability guideline) is unusual.
As has been explained to you numerous times, notability requires third party reliable sources that address the subject directly and in detail. One-sentence mentions in magazines do not meet this requirement. Neither does a magazine that cites bullshido.net as a source.
In order to be a valid reference under WP:V, it must be possible for a reader to check that the source does support any statements attributed to it. Unless your radio talk show is accessible online or recordings can be bought from the broadcaster (or something similar) it doesn't qualify. I can sense that you are going to cite the sentence from WP:V that says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources", this statement means that if (for instance) you have to go to your local library to check a source it's still a valid reference. It doesn't mean you can cite references even if there is no way of checking they support the statement. I should add that a talk show probably doesn't meet WP:RS anyway.
Your claim that "you're not intimately familiar with the details of XYZ, therefore you can't take part in this discussion" is wrong and has been rebutted above. Hut 8.5 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't actually address any of my points directly. You make vague references to other AfD discussions while being careful to cite no specifics. I don't think deleting articles is unusual; I do think that deleting them by citing increasingly minor issues with the article is silly, especially coming from people who are careful never to suggest a specific standard of improvement or actually improve the article. I did. Why didn't you?
Furthermore, WP:V does not mean you have to focus on American or Anglophone sources because some or isn't willing to do the work. This is an international project.
"No way of checking the source"? Did you even try? Also, this was a news feature, not a talk show.
If you want to play wikilawyer and disregard actual notability, go right ahead. Wikipedia will be the loser in that transaction, not Bullshido.net. Unlike Wikipedia, we get cited by a board member of the U.S. Judo Association when investigating a faker who stole his ran certificates. I know you wont change your vote, but nothing requires me to sit idly by and watch you play Wikipedia like it's a game. Either listen to the people who know what's what or don't. Doom yourselves to increasing irrelevance if you like. I hope for your project's sake that the closing admins have a sounder perspective on this than you do. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know why I'm continuing to reply to these points, but anyway:
Again, I pointed you to other AfD discussions so you could familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's deletion procedures. I didn't make an argument along the lines of "we deleted article X therefore we have to delete this one" because, as I explained above, this argument is flawed.
The general notability guideline is not a "silly minor issue", it is a basic test that is generally applied and not very hard to surmount. If sources for a subject don't exist, it isn't possible to write an article that complies with it. The people arguing to delete this article don't think it is possible to improve it in such a way as to address their concerns. That is why they haven't ed it.
I did try to find a copy of that show. The previous four episodes are available on their website. However even if the relevant one was there it wouldn't stay that way. Again, I don't think this programme fact-checks statements made by their panelists, especially as it seems to be an internet radio station, so it doesn't pass WP:RS anyway.
Bragging about how brilliant your website is isn't going to help you here. Nobody cares. Hut 8.5 10:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't know why you continue to reply? Neither do I. You've shown no interest in improving the article, and no recognition of the improvements thereto. I could only speculate on the psychological basis for your actions, but there appears to be no rational basis on which you'd care about the fate of a martial arts article.
Again, pointing me to "other AfD discussions" is a handwaving method for avoiding specifics. It's silly even by Internet argument standards. I've looked at some of those discussions, and I've seen nothing consistent in them.
The guideline isn't the silly and minor issue; the silly and minor issue is the basis on which it's being misapplied. You began by whining about the article, then about two or three sections of the article (all but one of which are now soundly sourced). Deleting an article because you don't like one section? Doesn't pass a smell test.
Did you email the host of the radio talk show? Did you do anything in order to acquire it? Or did you look at one website, see nothing, and declare an opportune defeat?
I'm trying to show you the actual notability of the site, as attested to by Stephen Koepfer, Neil Ohlenkamp, and other experts. That's not bragging; it is a fact. This isn't about having a super-specific knowledge of martial arts. This is about knowing anything much at all about the subject. Again, everyone in this discussion with a demonstrated history of knowledge and interest in the space, even those voting to delete, has mentioned knowing of the site and frequenting it. Against that, the blithe ignorance of ors who want to assert universal expertise amounts to nothing. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I don't know why I continue to reply, when all I get in return is misrepresentations of my position (I am not saying the article should be deleted because I "don't like one section") and repetition of arguments I have already addressed. Now at this point this discussion clearly isn't helping anyone so I'm not going to continue it further. Hut 8.5 13:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just following the substance of your argument. You made objections to specific sections. All but one have been fixed. You haven't addressed those improvements and haven't changed your vote, so what else is one to conclude? If you dislike this result, I can only suggest that you make a clearer argument. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After all the times it's been explained to you in exhaustive detail by several different ors, you think notability is about sourcing of specific sections?! Hut 8.5 21:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are shifting your ground. First you complained that the radio show wasn't WP:V because you couldn't verify it without actually trying; now you're retreating to WP:NOTE. Arguing that one lone source does not impart notability does not mean that you've succeeded in addressing notability generally. You're ignoring: a TV news feature; a magazine article which, as the President of the American Sambo Association himself came here to tell you, was based on Bullshido's work and acknowledged the same; multiple news items; a published article from Stanford University... Let's hear you say what would be notable, and back it with specific precedents. Otherwise you're engaging in pure obscurantism. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment In regards to WP:V, the nature of Bullshido.net one of consumer advocacy. As a result, it is a generator of content rather than an aggregator. It will be used as a source for other people's content rather than be written about itself. In addition to this, WP:SOURCES states that
Self-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances (see below). All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources."
WP:SELFPUB applies in the case of Bullshido.net as it is self-sourcing and generates content. The wikipedia entry is not based 'primarily on such sources,' but it certainly adds another source of verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkening (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct. Cunard's assessment of the use of the Ashida Kim article as a citation is wrong; the article demonstrates the claim. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The concerns about this article's inclusion rest on notability problems. Self-published and primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. Hut 8.5 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So at this point, discussion should focus on WP:N. The use of WP:V as a basis for deletion should be avoided and is not a fallback when sources which prove WP:N are provided. Darkening (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to make a note that Verifiability is one of the 3 issues initially brought up by Cunard. At this point, it appears to no longer be an issue as Notability is the main issue now. Darkening (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, didn't realize that threshold had been crossed. Certainly none of the naysayers have acknowledged as much. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Shouldn't the AfD be updated to reflect the current references? People appear to be voting based on Cunard's AfD and may be assuming it is current and accurate. It is neither. If it's not to be updated, can it have some note to the effect that there are more references now under discussion? I do not know what is customary in such a case. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, my first suggestion fails; if the AfD is amended, then all the subsequent concurrences will appear to address the new references, which they did not. Second suggestion still has merit, but again, I don't know what's standard here. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone? Bueller? The AfD is now factually false from its first sentence onward. Is it worth avoiding the risk of misleading people who just read the nom and assume its current accuracy? Unless that is the point, in which case, GG. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. We don't rewrite other people's comments, even if they are inaccurate. Hut 8.5 13:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A notation after the AfD to the effect that it is no longer factually accurate is not rewriting anyone else's comments. I already withdrew the idea of amending the AfD. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The original stipulation that Bullshido.net fails the No Original Research policy is unfounded. There is no information in the Bullshido.net article which pushes original research that isn't supported by external sources. Mentions of the Bannon case are supported by articles in the Rocky Mountain News and Charlotte Observer (Google News search screen capture) which are up for purchase in their archives. With the inclusion of the Bullshido.net research in independent 3rd party reliable sources, the argument that the Bullshido.net article fails WP:OR is moot. Darkening (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we looking at the same article? The entire overview section has no source, which means it is original research. The entire Throwdown section is has no source, with the exception of the last line, which means it is all original research (except for the last line). The "spin off series" section has no references, and is all original research. The Bannon section is the only part that is reasonably sourced, and that is because all of the sources are about him, and not Bullshido, all of which are in the article about him. It's interesting really that the martial arts fraudster is actually more notable than the fraud investigation site...--kelapstick (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking of reading the article, you might want to look at the current version, as previously stated. The source in the origin and name is more than sufficient under WP:SELFPUB. The investigation sections has multiple sources for multiple investigations, including Khristian Geraci and Milton Wallace. The criticism section is also amply sourced. The overview section needs improvement, and the spinoffs section could be flensed away without any real loss of information, but deleting the article to fix two iffy sections is insane. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, the Throwdown section now has sourcing. Calls for deletion are not a reasonable way to get an article improved. Next time, if you want a change, post something in the discussion page. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That youtube video may be a WP:COPYVIO. It is a commercial production that was posted by someone other than the copyright holder. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That video is being hosted by the commercial entity that produced it. It says so on the page. That is why I linked directly to that page, and not the YT video itself. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link in the article goes to a youtube page that says it was posted by user bullshido throwdown. So now you're saying that user bullshido throwdown is really that news station? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, sorry, thought you were actually replying about the new sourcing. My bad. You didn't mean the throwdown video posted by Modcom. In any case, go ask; maybes don't make it so. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm talking about the one you are using as a source in the article. Despite trying to be civil towards you, I still get 3 sarcastic summaries from you. Why do I even bother. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, sorry, I am being a jerk and need to calm down. deep breath
There are three citations in the current Throwdown section, two of which were videos, one of which was added today. I figured you were talking about the one added today, since that's what I discussed in this subthread. I now know you meant the channel JOJ news item, which I believe was posted with the permission of the channel (I'll go ask). The video link I added today was not posted on YT by BullshidoThrowdown, so that's how I got confused. Mea culpa.
That said, I believe it's not a copyright issue; I believe the clip is being used with permission, but I'll make sure. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed the copyright thing. Channel JOJ was fine with this news feature being put up as long as their logo was on the product. It is. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you suggesting that a description of a given topic requires external sources? That would be akin to having someone else describe what you do for a living as opposed to you describing it yourself. That may be an anecdote, that it is what you are implying. The Bullshido.net article does not push original research outside of describing what Bullshido.net does. To say that the article needs citations in describing its purpose is ridiculous. Darkening (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment In the interest of improving the sourcing I would like to offer this ranking by big-boards.com which has Bullshido.net, as of this writing at #75 (by traffic) out of 2337 large boards ranked, and this reference from the British Aikido History Information website "Bullshido.org is the internets / worlds largest website for exposing frauds - Charlatans & Organisations that discr the Martial Arts." --Mthai66 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep For all the reasons I have given above. And now that I know what WP:SPA refers I would ask that those leveling that charge at me do the obvious and check my history. --Mthai66 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep. Bullshido.net was mentioned on CBS-owned TV.com; a thread on Bullshido.net that brought out the participation of many cast members of the show in question. Wikipedia's Reliable Source Examples state the following with regards to the use of electronic or online sources:
o An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may,
exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as ors to review material
and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be
appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online.
Martial Arts is not a field with a substantial amount of coverage in print sources. Martial Arts Investigations have near zero coverage in print sources. The references that are mentioned in the news article all reference Bullshido and not any other martial arts web sites or organizations. Bullshido is precisely this: an internet forum with identifiable, expert, and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy. In addition, the site clearly identifies expert contributors be they staffers or members. The moderators, as well as the community members are vigorously dedicated to reviewing material as well challenging and correcting factual errors. At least to me, it follows logically that a site strong enough to be a Reliable Source Example is strong enough to warrant a page of its own. Carol Kaur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability requires third-party sources, so bullshido.net, even if it is a reliable source (it isn't), cannot be used as a source to establish the notability of bullshido.net. It's not true that martial arts is a field with little coverage in print sources, there are thousands of books on the subject. A very brief mention on a comment thread, even if the site is owned by CBS, does not count as a reliable source and doesn't establish notability. Hut 8.5 12:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A brief mention not being notable is understandable. However, Bullshido also appears to be a website that would be far more difficult to obtain mainstream press than other websites of its size and traffic. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 proposed a 10-fold increase in fines issued by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for profane material -- $325,000 per utterance, up to a cap of $3,000,000. The act was passed by Congress and signed in to law by President Bush in 2006, leading to a variety of literate scholarly and industry complaints about how the new law and surrounding lawsuits   are encroaching broadcast content. The name, especially if mispronounced, sounds close enough to a term that could levy a $325,000 fine for a station, plus tens of thousands more in legal fees as well as the risk of bad press. The not-always-appropriate-for-all-ages content may also play an impact in legacy news coverage. That does not take away from the content or overall impact of Bullshido, it simply makes it more difficult to get free broadcast publicity. Carol Kaur (talk) Carol Kaur 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not going to overrule the notability guideline simply because the article title sounds a bit like "bullshit". It a subject doesn't have sources, it doesn't have sources. Hut 8.5 20:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly is so appealing about the extreme intellectual brittleness being trumpeted as commitment to principle in this discussion? Some entities are harder to source than others. Knowingly arguing that an entity is not Notable while knowing full well that it is in fact of note in the Real World is intellectual dishonesty of a high order. Some of you here would seemingly vote to delete an artilcle on Yetis even if a live Yeti were sitting in the same room smoking a cigar. I do not believe Wikipedia was created to give anal retentive rules lawyers an excuse to make a mockery of the standards of rational inquiry. This is why the directive to give priority to the spirit of a rule exists, because cases will crop up where the standard interpretation produces an irrational result. Put away the Monster Manuals, stop quoting scripture and *use your damn minds*. If scientists restricted themselves ahead of time to using only certain types of experiments, virtually nothing would get done. Intellectual agility is a virtue, not a vice. It's a big site. It has a lot of members. It gets a lot of traffic. It dominates a field that is of interest to a broad swath of the American public (consumers of Martial Arts instruction). All of these facts have been demonstrated in this discussion. If you know all that to be true, and yet persist in voting "delete" in defense of inflexibility, you are guilty of subverting a noble project and attempting to turn it into a grotesque. --Mthai66 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Skipping the grand speech, when I say the site isn't "notable" I mean "it doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Notability". That page gives the notability standards Wikipedia has decided to adopt. If you don't like those standards, go to the guideline talk page and try to get a consensus to change them. Until that happens they will continue to be applied in AfD discussions like this one. Hut 8.5 10:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Skipping the childish snark, you've done nothing to demonstrate lack of compliance with WP:NOTE. Furthermore, unless you want Wikipedia itself to become irrelevant, real-world notability matters. This is why WP:IAR exists, and why WP:GAME is an anti-pattern, not a policy recommendation. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing a consensus emerging here. Nobody is converging on a generally acceptable answer. The delete votes never suggest any improvement that would suffice, stating only that each and every improvement in the sourcing is irrelevant or insufficient, without really justifying that position. The keep voters have been the only ones moving to improve the article itself, and to address the stated concerns of their opposition, but it appears that one side of this argument had made up its mind long ago. They did not work to build a consensus or compromise in any way. They did not work with us. Thuys, there is no consensus. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with both your interpretation of policy, and your denial of consensus. However, it's not for either of us to make the call. An uninvolved admin will be along at the conclusion of the AfD to review the contents and make a decision. Dayewalker (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's swell. Can you show me how anything is merging to a consensus? Any mutually acceptable middle ground at all? Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did, and here's what you apparently didn't read: "Discussions should always be attempts to persuade others, using reasons. If discussion turns into a polarized shouting match then there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the page will suffer." See also Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?: "Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely." Want to argue that's happened here? Go for it. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep this is one of the most important niche martial arts websites on the internet [citation needed!], and it would be a disservice to the encyclopedia, and public knowledge, to delete such an important site/article based on questionable reasoning. the most recent version of the article which i've read clearly provides adequate sourcing for such a niche topic. sure, there are no time magazine articles for sourcing, but i wouldn't expect there to be. the sourcing provided, even if it's not very strong, should satisfy wikipedia's requirements if you look at the situation based on making the encyclopedia better vs being a fundamentalist who needs nytimes sources to validate notability of a niche site. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There are those, including me, who do not differentiate between "making the encyclopedia better" and "being a fundamentalist who needs nytimes sources to validate notability," although I don't see how being a fan of WP:GNG makes me some kind of fundamentalist, nor do I necessarily require sourcing to the NY Times, or even sources of that caliber in general. You are correct in noting that the sourcing provided is not very strong. I cannot verify whether the rest of your arguments -- that it is "one of the most important niche martial arts websites on the internet," for example -- are equally correct because no reliable sourcing exists to support them. QED. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is one of those particularly prickly AfD's where if you disregard the actual quality of the sourcing provided, you might be tempted to vote keep. Unfortunately, an ocean of trivial mentions, non-mentions, and larger mentions in completely unreliable sourcing does not a notable topic make, no matter how relatively well-written this article is (relative to most articles that I think are blatant candidates for deletion, on review). Reviewing the sources doesn't even make this a particularly close call. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Just by virtue of the site's #2 ranking in genre and #75 ranking in overall traffic at big-boards.com I think you must grant that it is a forum of note. All fora suffer from the same small footprint in offline media, not just this one. Even skyscrapercity.com (which is #1 for overall traffic) is just barely better than Bullshio.net in media coverage. --Mthai66 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment forums.somethingawful.com is a top 10 site. Is that what it takes to meet your standard? Really? Bullshido.net is #75 which is a lot better than most fora. Deadspin is not even a forum. What's your point?--Mthai66 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment That is an excellent example of a looser definition of a given concept is completely acceptable. Reading through the criticisms here, there are many points here that say the Bullshido page has no sources. There are many counterpoints in place that say the page indeed does have sources, multiple sources. The counter to the counterpoints state that the sources are there, but they do not meet a strict definition. The link Wiki Link to Something Awful starts by reading:
Something Awful, often abbreviated to SA, is a comedy website housing a variety of content, including
blog entries, forums, feature articles, digitally ed pictures, and humorous media reviews. It was
created by Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka in 1999 as a largely personal website, but as it grew, so did its
contributors and content. Since then, the website has influenced internet culture and helped to
perpetuate various internet phenomena.
This is not a strict definition of a web forum.
To recap, "Something Awful is a comedy website housing a variety of content, including:
Digitally Edited Pictures
Humorous Media Reviews
This is a very loose description of a "forum". Loose, but still acceptable.
Looser descriptions are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia's Notability Page reads:
As the Wikipedia community has grown its rules have in turn become more complex, a trend labeled by Nicholson Baker as
Instruction creep. This trend is reflected in the development and increasing complexity
of the notability guidelines, with various special notability guidelines being proposed for specific topic areas,
including notability criteria for porn stars.
The criteria for notability can indeed be in flux. The criteria for notability can indeed meet a looser description. A looser description can be acceptable. The Bullshido page meets all of the guidelines for a notable and sourced page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol Kaur (talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To suggest that the support for this deletion is based upon some obsession with the technical details of Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than in keeping with the spirit of those pages is without merit. As I've already explained, the notability guidelines have at their core a requirement for information to be verifiable. As I've pointed out, verifiability "is one of Wikipedia's core content policies". All that I and others are asking is that the general notability guidelines are complied with. This isn't an example of instruction creep getting in the way, the GNG is very basic and about as simple as it gets. Adambro (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To suggest that your reading of WP:NOTE is the only possible or reasonable reading in this case is silly. Carol Kaur is citing relevant text about the concept of Notability; that it is text you choose to ignore when making your interpretation of the policy is a problem with your argument, not hers. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carol Kaur is essentially taking my "loose" definition of forum (a fair point) and allowing it to lead, as if as part of a logic proof, to support for a "loose" interpretation of notability criteria. This is utter nonsense -- and I apologize for the strong language, but I don't like it when my words are twisted -- insofar as my definition of a forum has precisely nothing to do with my "interpretation" of notability criteria.
Indeed, the only argument in here that appears to attempt to "ignore" notability is Carol Kaur's, which is a tired and familiar argument in support of clearly non-notable material that basically reads: "look, notability is open to interpretation, and the nature of this topic is such that nobody talks about it in reliable sources, so it's notable, because rules change, right?" Wrong. This is an argument that, by its very nature, ignores both WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. There is nothing particularly interpretable about WP:VERIFY.
The arguments being made in favor of deletion are extremely simple, and are inevitably met with hundreds of words of spirited refactoring and reinterpretation of policy, rather than the addition of plainly verifiable citing from reliable sources. This is the kind of thing seen in an AfD that, for me, is extremely telling.
"the nature of this topic is such that nobody talks about it in reliable sources". Why you persist in discounting the scholarly output of Stanford university is beyond me. This piece is the work of a candidate for a terminal degree, and (as confirmed by the named department) has the tacit approval of the university, demonstrated by their hosting of said content on the departmental website. The use of the language "college student project" to discount this reference is such an egregious violation of good-faith presumption I am inclined to wonder what is the point. There are no "college students" at Stanford University; there are no "college students" in graduate school. Disregarding this as if it were simply a term paper for Freshman Composition at Bunker Hill Community College is a refusal to acknowledge that your standards have been satisfied. What are we even talking about at this point? --21:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The argument is, taken at its best possible value, an amusing satire of a demonstrative proof. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why mock it as such? The implication is that you have some disregard for such modes of argument. I am inclined to wonder. --Mthai66 (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it wasn't intended as satire. Either way, are you trying to make some kind of point relevant to the AfD here or is your mental masturbation as pointless as it appears to be? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not consider a graduate student thesis to be a notability-conferring source, regardless of the quality of the university, no. Also, I didn't say "college student project" anywhere in my post. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Search this discussion to see where those exact words were used. Also, if academic publications do not confer notability, the wiki is about to get a LOT smaller and a LOT dumber.
Your snark-ridden tone does nothing but establish your ridiculous antipathy and bias. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just pointing out that someone responding directly to a post of mine continued on to quote someone else, without differentiating. That's problematic. Also, I am sorry that you don't understand the notability guidelines. Also, weren't you blocked two days ago for personal attacks or being disruptive or something along those lines? Your thoughts regarding my "snark-ridden tone" aren't exactly ones I hold in high regard. I have no bias regarding "bullshido.net". I've never even heard of it. Frankly, it seems like a pretty cool website. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The arguments being made are ignoring the citations and the references. By that logic, flash-in-the-pan news bytes,such as the AC Transit Bus Fight are more notable, as long as they have accompanied by a viral video to get news coverage along with a news story. Again, another instance where the criteria is simply elastic.
I removed the notability tag you placed on AC Transit Bus fight. The tag does not apply because the general
notability guideline is met by the substantial coverage in reliable sources. Feel free to renominate this article
for deletion at AfD, though, if you believe WP:NOTNEWS applies. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The refrences for the Bullshido page are not as passing as they are made out to be. They reflect the work that Attorney Browning did for Bullshido. They do not state that someone had coffee with Sam Browning of Bullshido, nor do they state that Sam Browning made a post about a case he handles in his private practice on Bullshido. They reflect the he did in conjunction with the site as it relates to the story.
The United States Judo Association or USJA has web page that lists all of the individuals that have been suspended or expelled from the organization. Scroll to the bottom and you'll find the listing of one Matt Morton, of the U.S. State of Missouri. There are many entries on Bullshido, including this thread started by a prominent judoka whose credentials have been vigoroulsy verified by the Bullshido admins, that questioned whether Matt Morton truly had the rank he claimed. The resulting investigation indicated that Matt Morton's rank was likely false. The discussion was followed on JudoForum (cited here on Wikipedia for its Judo articles) run by Sensei Neil Ohlenkamp, whose certificate was the one that Matt Morton stole to make his own, as well as on MartialTalk.com. Now, why did that happen? Anyone can say anything about anybody, correct? Anyone can put up a web page to say anything, correct? A person could announce that they are a black belt, that would not make it so, nor would it mean that anyone would care. To see how Matt Morton's certificates were vigorously investigated, and to the point where the USJA noticed....and took the steps to investigate (and subsequently suspend) Matt Morton for his actions speaks volumes of the impact of the website. Anyone can see for themselves, here is a Google query for "Matt Morton" and Judo. Compare the number of names on USJA's Expelled/Suspended page with all the people that are members of the USJA -- the Wiki page says this accounts for more than 1000 clubs across America. Bullshido? Non-notable? If it wasn't, the USJA would not have cared. --Carol Kaur 01:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol Kaur (talk • contribs)
This is a pretty outstanding defense of Bullshido as a quality and impactful investigative site, and I applaud you for not getting dragged down into the fray here. That said, while I sympathize with your points (and I sincerely do), and I assume they are accurate, they simply do not confer or equate to notability. If the actions, events, etc., being described above were actually notable, they would be the subject of non-trivial coverage in third parties. They do not appear to have been, judging both by the sources in the article and by your thoughtful post here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I do not consider a graduate student thesis to be a notability-conferring source, regardless of the quality of the university" File under stunnedand speachless. "If the actions, events, etc., being described above were actually notable, they would be the subject of non-trivial coverage in third parties" You keep saying this as if it is self-evident, when in fact a write-up of just such an investigation exists in the Geraci case, and is being discounted here for failing to be *about* Bullshido.net. Be honest, you don't want an article on the Matt Morton case, you want a feature in Wired magazine *on* Bullshido.net. Just say so. And can we leave masturbation out of this please? --Mthai66 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment For the record, the work on the Matthew Morton case was done by myself and one other member of this discussion. Much of the most damaging evidence against Mr Moton came in the form of image analysis demonstrationg that credentials such as this had anomolies evident upon enhancement indicating that they had been doctored. Legitimate credentials of this typewere examined, until the exact image manipulated by Mr Moton was identified, and the precise nature of the manipulation was demonstrated by superimposition. Now tell me, which publication is most likely to reprint such an analysis? If you can't think of one then we surely do have something in common. If you can think of a 3rd part neurtal publication that would consider reprinting it, speak up and I'll have a manuscript on their desk in a matter of days. The truth is that, to my knowledge, no such publication exists. That is not an argument against the reality that Bullshido is Notable for such work. Bullshido.net came into existence precicely for the purpose of filling that void. --Mthai66 (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 s should be made to this page.