Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   No consensus - however, following a request, I have no problem with a re-nomination here, as I was very close to deleting this for lack of reliable sources.Black Kite 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:V. The only evidence of mainstream attention for this website is a handful of news articles which cites Samuel Browning's work in debunking David "Race" Bannon. This incident is already mentioned in the Bannon article. My attempts to merge/redirect have been reverted. This article should be deleted and then a protected redirect to David "Race" Bannon created in its place.

The rest of the "citations" are crap, either primary sources to Bullshido itself, or references to other self-published, unreliable websites.

Note: If this discussion is overwhelmed by non-policy-compliant "votes" from Bullshido cultists, I will take it to Deletion Review. It's time to stop allowing policy to be outvoted by small, unrepresentative cliques. *** Crotalus *** 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion was started after an undiscussed redirect without merge here and here --Natet/c 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, with a side-note that the nominator may wish to tone down the unnecessarily-strong wording of the nomination. Let's at least start off by assuming good faith on behalf of the participants.  But I agree Wikipedia doesn't need this content.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community.Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is just another in a series of pointy nominations and other questionable behavior from the nom. bullshido is a big deal. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's such a big deal then how come there are no reliable secondary sources specifically focusing on it? The only reliable sources we have are a few newspaper articles highlighting Samuel Browning's role in debunking David Race Bannon. That rates a mention in the Bannon article &mdash; but why does it need its own article? *** Crotalus *** 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources are present and several other supporting sources that are acceptable but no as good, additional sourcing would be an improvement, but AfD is not for articles that need to be improved. The redirect suggested is a poor choice as the article includes minimal if any information on the site. --Natet/c 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- Natet/c 08:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Natet/c 08:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could this possibly be merged with similar articles (Bullshido, McDojo, anything else?) to a new summary article? I'm thinking criticism of martial arts, although that title is a little misleading since it often isn't criticism of martial arts as a whole. Any better ideas? the wub "?!"  09:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the benefit to merging Bullshido & McDojo under another title, I think merging Bullshido.net however would not be as useful, as while it investigates those areas and helped popularise the terms, it would imply they were the only people who did this kind of thing and tie the terms to the site too closely. --Natet/c 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as I can tell, this kind of talk is pretty much limited to the Bullshido cult. No reliable sources seem to have deemed any of this worthy of discussion. *** Crotalus *** 15:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you refering to the article or the editors? --Natet/c 08:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * what is the bullshido cult? that sounds like a negative POV. is that why you are trying to get this deleted? because you think it's a cult and you dislike it? Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep one of the most notable martial arts web sites, and has had a broader impact through fostering discussions on Ashida Kim, traditional martial arts training methods, etc. Once again, another nom. that feels like a WP:POINT violation. JJL (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominator is correct when s/he said that the references in the article are not nontrivial, independent reliable sources that specifically discuss Bullshido.net. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision: 1. This article from Rocky Mountain News 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. 2. http://realbullshido.blogspot.com/ – Blogspot is not a reliable source. It is a collection of blogs that can be written by anyone who signs up. 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 editorial 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 Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)) has also not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given. 5. The reference that states that Bullshido.net is the "[s]eventh in Alexia category on last view" points to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category. This link does not lead to anything about Bullshido.net. 6. This article from Rocky Mountain News does not even mention Bullshido.net. 7. This article from Interpol.com is the same as #6. It does not even mention Bullshido.net. 8. http://ashidakim.com/10k.html is from the same source as #4. Not only is it an unreliable source, but it also doesn't even mention Bullshido.net. 9. This article from The Believer (magazine) does not even mention Bullshido.net. 10. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=28Ashida – a link from Bullshido.net cannnot be a neutral, independent reliable source about itself. 11. http://www.bullshido.org/Ashida_Kim – this is the same as #8. 12. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160 – this is the same as #8. 13. http://dojopress.com/catalogms2.html – This unreliable source is a catalogue for selling memberships. Even if it were reliable, it would not be a sufficient source because it doesn't 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 opposed to the merge suggested above by . There are absolutely no reliable sources that discuss Bullshido.net. Even the passing mentions from reliable sources (see #1) do not provide enough context to justify a stub. 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. The above "keep" votes state that "Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community" and "one of the most notable martial arts web sites", but I have been unable to uncover anything to substantiate their claims. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Samuel Browning is an admin of BS.net & put the information up there, the investigation supported and discussed in the supporting members forum. --Natet/c 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be true, but I have been unable to uncover any reliable sources to substantiate the claim that Bullshido.net played a major role in the investigation of David "Race" Bannon. In fact, there are very few sources that discuss Samuel Browning and Bullshido.net in connection with David "Race" Bannon. Even if there were a valid source, Bullshido.net should not be merged or redirected to David "Race" Bannon. The article about Banning should be about himself; it should not discuss a website that is only tangential to his life. Thus, I believe that this article should be deleted because there are absolutely no reliable sources that provide nontrivial discussion about it. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.