Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDojo (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   delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

McDojo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original AFD nomination from eight months ago by User:Crotalus horridus was as follows: "This article fails to meet verifiability requirements and also fails to meet inclusion guidelines for neologisms. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the article constitutes original research. There are currently 5 citations, but three of them (#2, #4, and #5) do not even mention the term at all. The other two contain passing mentions. A Toronto Star article has the following sentence: "The sheer number of fight schools in Toronto promising fast and furious training has also given rise to a fresh, if not flattering, moniker: McDojos." That's it. No further descriptions of the neologism, how it arose, how it is used, etc. The same is true of the Cairns Sun reference, which contains a quote in which a martial arts teacher denies his school is a McDojo. Again, that's it. We can't build an article on this slender reed of sourcing. There's just nothing reliable and verifiable to say. The real purpose of this article is to inflate the prominence and reputation of marginal web sites. It's bullshidocruft and bullshidospam. If we limited the article to verifiable information it would literally consist of about 2 sentences."

Since then, the article has not been improved, but rather, the only thing that has changed is the re-addition and re-removal of the most egregious of the original research. Thus I contend that despite the "keep" result of the previous AFD, the article fails to meet notability for neologisms, nor is the term significantly covered in reliable sources. Thus it's time to put this unsalvagable article out of its misery once and for all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this non-notable and unverifiable neologism.   talk 05:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Google news ; Google scholar ; Google books ; Google ; 70.29.210.155 (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NAD. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, since I can find nothing from which we can build an article that complies with both our core policies (WP:V, WP:NOR) and WP:NOTDICT. Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOTDICT, and WP:NOR.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- Natet/c 09:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is in serious need of a clean up an additional sourcing, but a lack of feed back on what kind of sources would be acceptable, and any constructive critisum drained any motivation for working on the article, (see the talk page). Please note that the version curnely live is a crudley truncated version, based on source must be perfect quality and sentences linking the sources in t a coherent flow are not allowed. --Natet/c 09:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This from the person who was responsible for re-adding all of the original research back to the article and then doing nothing further with it. Your argument is very much a case of WP:ILIKEIT, and considering that absolutely ZERO reliable sources to establish notability have surfaced since the last AFD indicates that they aren't out there to be found.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I re-added it with the intention of doing some work, then real life kept me away. If you look a my contribs they are some what sparse after that edit. I accept entirely that it needs fixing and large chunks removing or completely re-writing but if your aptitude is "delete all but 2 paragraphs so no one will work on it" then, but if I have to go though source hunting to make suer ever word is cited it takes ages. did you make ONE helpful comment or suggestion on the specifics of what should be improved? I they read as WP:ILIKEIT this may be to counter your WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. One of they key points was an attempt to start a discussion on re naming the article as those opposed to it kept saying "but it dosen't say McDojo" (and ignoring the Duck Test) so renaming would have been a sensible step. --Natet/c 14:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, the WP:BURDEN is on the person who adds or restores the material to ensure that it's well-sourced. Whether or not I have participated in any talk page discussion is irrelevant, because WP:OR and WP:V apply equally to everyone regardless of their level of participation in a given article.  As you have not actually produced the goods, and have focused on people rather than content, I can assume that no significant coverage exists to establish notability, or else it would have been found by now.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the burden is on me but as I said I had some real world stuff to deal with. The problem on my side is knowing what you feel would satisfy the burden, and as you refuse to participate its virtually impossible to figurer this out, Please don't just point @ WP:RS i need your interpretation of it (especially in regard to WP:N) which seem to differ from mine in such a way that it is hard to work on. --Natet/c 13:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as stated previously; 2 passing mentions in reliable sources aren't enough to write a Wikipedia article. *** Crotalus *** 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Applicable policies/guidelines this topic fails are Verifiability, Original research, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Notability. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO and nom. Adambro (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * McDelete. Total garbage, this defies every single policy and guideline I can think of.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 15:37, 28 May 2010 (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.