Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido (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 keep; I'll let you guys decide if you're carrying on with the merge or not. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshido

Bullshido (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete and Salt NN Neologism, all gnews hits are for bullshido.net. Article has been tagged for refs since Dec 2006, citations since Nov 2007 with no improvements. Essay is a manifesto for the site and has severe issues with original research, refs provided are examples of what author considers to fit description not WP:RS. COI and POV issues include article's creator Phrost is also the bullshido.net co-owner, and he and Scb steve the designated representative for bullshido.net wrote almost all of the article's content. I'm seeing no indication that enough independent material or usage exists to create an article up to minimal standards in the forseeable future.

Requesting salt as article has been through process twice and has never closed as keep yet keeps returning. VFD[1] resulted in redirect w/o merge (revert by IP), AFd in merge (revert by Phrost), despite a blatant puppet/vote stacking campaign conducted to keep it. DRV[2] discussion was closed on procedural grounds due to the article existing, not as an overturn of previous result. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article was returned within hours of deletion and has been in widely edited since. Regardless or out come i see no grounds for salting. (see my comments bellow) --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

On the puppet accusation, the article also covered the site at the time, a link was posted on the public forums and suddenly their were lots of interested parties, who were not directly incited to post. Im not saying it was a good thing but it should not be prejudicial here. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of third party coverage regarding the term; fails WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Smerge whatever is needed into Bullshido.net, redirect, and protect. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because of the many issues raised by nom. The representatives haven't kept up with this one, and no one outside of their group seems interested either. A description of the term is already at Bullshido.net. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep widely used by martial artists but best known in association with the site. JJL (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Salting is just silly in this situation. Its a notable neologism. Bullshido is a reputable source imo on martial arts. RogueNinja_talk 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The website is a separate article and not what we're discussing. Would you mind showing proof of the term's notability, because nobody has managed it in the 15 months it's been tagged.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Smerge as per Dhartung. The article is un-sourced and redundant to bullshido.net. jmcw (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Smerge to Bullshido.net and protect if necessary. No reliable sources to substantiate article contents or demonstrate notable usage independent of bullshido.net. --Muchness (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable term used by martial artists. It has been used independently [3], and while they mention the site it is as an aside, try this search for more, this gives 5000 which have had a lot of potentially relevent ones removed by the constraints a lot are hits to descriptions of videos, while not sources these are a pointer that it's in common useage. The article needs more sourcing as do the vast majority of MA articles, however some is provided, a removal of less sources material would be fair as would some re-wording, however very few good faith attempts to improve the article have been made. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(p.s. I am member of bullshido.net with same username, but would state I have about over 10 edits here for every post there.)--Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The term is in common, conversational use by Martial Artists and describes a specific and serious phenomenon familiar to people within a multi-million dollar, international industry. --Phrost (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Nate, but I think some POV information has to be removed and cleaned.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The term Bullshido is becoming more and more widespred in the Martial Arts lexicon and used with no relation to the website. As an example see No Bullshido, a short independent movie done without any association to the website itself. An article is definitely warranted and needed.--Palcrypt (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources in the article do not establish that this is a notable neologism, and 95% of the article violates WP:SYNTH. Quale (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This source I added dose cover much of the same territory tying together several of the strings quiet neatly. It's hard to use some of the specific comments other than the lead as it is in the same area but written very diffrently
• Keep per comments by Nate1481. Additionally, the website Bullshido.net is predicated on the term in question here - a term which connotates fradulence and martial arts. The website, and consequentially the term, has gained mainstream media notice, particularly in the Rocky Mountain Herald. Similarly, the term "Gucci socialist" doesn't have an established provenance, but enjoys a place on Wikipedia as a notable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scb steve (talk • contribs) 22:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please provide the article for your WP:WAX argument again? I would like to take a look at it to see if it needs to be deleted. The link you provided is already red. Thanks. -- Swerdnaneb 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gucci_socialist --Scb steve (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Good timing. We edit conflicted. :) -- Swerdnaneb 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The difference is that "Gucci socialist" has been used by reliable sources... Canada Free Press, Daily Dispatch. -- Swerdnaneb 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Smerge I don't think this lives up to WP:NEO. I see a lot of examples of things that would be described as "bullshido", but I don't see a lot of reliable sources. -- Swerdnaneb 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment well, 251,000 is a lot of ghits for a neologism. Look how many are used to describe videos of bad martial arts practices. JJL (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Neat! Any reliable sources turning up? -- Swerdnaneb 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Can the editors who want to keep the article provide reliable third-party sources to establish that this term satisfies WP:V and WP:NEO? Because currently the only article references that mention the term are self-published sources (Usenet posts and a self-published article on a website). Note that WP:NEO states: "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." --Muchness (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment National Association of Martial Artists: August 2007 Martial Arts Professional Magazine Extraordinary Marketing - Are You a "Bullshido?" Or, Do You Run a "McDojo?", Part 2 by Stephen Oliver, MBA. Part 1 is in their July issue. The NAPMA is a major fixture in the Martial Arts industry. --Phrost (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you get the ISSN for those two, as site seems to need a password to view them. If those are added then you have a clear pass of WP:NEO with as an article on the term in a published source, then the other sources are gap filling --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This is the best I can do, it's a cache of the page. I don't actually subscribe to this magazine myself. Cache of the magazine table of contents --Phrost (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Nate1481 although I would not be totally opposed to some sort of a merge solution given this is the third nomination for this article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (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.