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.
Completing the listing of this page here after a DRV requested undeletion and relisting. No vote. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a serious outfit that's received play in the martial arts press. RGTraynor 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you source that claim? I see exactly 1 Google hit. That doesn't really seem to indicate Bullshido.net meets the WP:WEB criteria, but if you have sources that it does I'd be inclined to consider them before rendering an opinion.--Isotope23 16:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How did you manage one G-hit? I get something like 59,000. [1]. RGTraynor 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Isotope Please consult the David Race Bannon article for how a member of Bullshido contributed evidence against a criminal impersonator that had fooled NPR - National Public Radio, and a number of other institutions before being arrested. That is an example of how a Bullshido investigation had a notable impact. Please also see the Ashida Kim article to see an example of notability. --Scb steve 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm heavily disinclined to consider evidence from other wikipedia articles as sources per WP:WEB, though searching on David Race Bannon might be useful for finding press citations that would satisfy WP:WEB. I'm still investigating.--Isotope23 17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment watch out for counting Ghits when you search on what looks like a specific site; Google only ever returns a single hit when it thinks you're searching for a URL. For instance, Yahoo! only gets one hit. Mangojuicetalk 16:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that would be why I got one hit.--Isotope23 17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge- bullshido.net (the web site) is already mentioned in the Bullshido article (which may itself be merged with McDojo) and the description there can be expanded if appropriate. Bullshido.net, about the site rather than the concept, appears to be mostly an advertising or vanity article. The bullshido.net site has Alexa rank 66,275 and only a dozen or so inbound Google link hits (but see below) that are not from bullshido.net itself or from Wikipedia (search) and no other claims of notability (such as cites to print media) have been made. The person pressing hardest for non-deletion (User:Scb steve) is one of bullshido.net's site ops per his user page. See: WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer for the phenomenon. Phr 16:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On big-boards.com, Bullshido.net is second only to sherdog.net as a top martial arts site, sherdog being the top website for MMA-related content, whereas Bullshido is a more comprehensive website that not only has forums, but also generates content, particularly through investigations. This website and this article is written in the same format and is akin to the SomethingAwful article on Wikipedia. The claim to notability has been made above concerning the involvement of a Bullshido.net member (Samuel Browning) in investigating David Race Bannon.
Regarding the issue of the bullshido.net article being sufficiently different from the bullshido as a concept article, this is also similar to SA's separate articles on the website and its forums[2]. The concept of Bullshido was popularized by the website, but enjoys common usage among other communities and practitioners of martial arts. The article is in response to that already popular concept. The claim by Phr that "Bullshido.net is sufficiently mentioned in the Bullshido article" is not true, as I see it. The website appears only twice in that article: A casual reference on where the term came from in "Origin of the Term/Concept", and an external link.
As mentioned, I think it's reasonable to expand that part of the Bullshido article to say more about the web site. Phr 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are claims that this is a "vanity" or "advertising" article, then I respectfully request that it be explained how Newgrounds, Ebaumsworld, or Slashdot articles are structured to not be "vanity" or "advertising." so that the Bullshido.net article can be rewritten to comply. --Scb steve 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's only slightly a matter of how the article is structured. It's mainly a matter of why anyone wants the article there in the first place. Please spend 20 seconds privately asking yourself why it matters to you whether the article is there, then see item #1 of this list and see if it applies. It also points towards vanity if the main authors of the article are associated with the site (see WP:AUTO for a related concept). To pick just one of your other examples, Slashdot has been edited by 269 distinct registered users [3] vs 3 for bullshido.net, and the Slashdot editors' motivation is to document a site that's definitely notable (314,000 Google inlinks vs. 78 (most of them internal) for bullshido.net, Alexa rank 304 vs. 66,275 for bullshido.net), while your motivation for pressing for bullshido.net's inclusion seems to be to increase the site's notoriety, something Slashdot does not need. Obviously, if Bullshido.net gets its traffic levels anywhere near Slashdot's, the question will become different and can be revisited at that time. Wikipedia features sites after they achieve notability, not before. Phr 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The Bullshido article is the more questionable one; the term comes from the Website, so this one is the more general page. Bullshido.net is one of the most actively read web forums out there: [4] and one of the top two martial-arts related forums: [5]. Plus, it's not just a forum. I see no effort has been made to ask for ((cleanup)) on the article, so I think deletion is premature. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to MangoJuice Wikipedia has an article on both the website Slashdot and the "Slashdot Effect."[6]. Despite the fact that the general phenomenon of a popular site linking to and overloading another website is called "traffic overload", Wikipedia maintains an article page on the specific phenomenon of Slashdot overloading pages - "Slashdot Effect." I believe that this is similar to what Bullshido and Bullshido.net exemplifies: A notable website, and a concept that may have been popularized by the website, but is notable enough to stand on its own. --Scb steve 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also multiple articles related to Google and Microsoft. When bullshido.net has as much traffic as those sites, then it, too, will probably have multiple articles. That is: after, not before. The notion that bullshido.net is presently comparable to Slashdot is simply a ridiculous conceit and I wish you'd stop using it since it is probably hurting your cause. Phr 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve: of course, we're not debating deletion of Bullshido here, so it doesn't really matter. I'll bring this to Talk:Bullshido. Mangojuicetalk 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RGTraynor. I'll see if I can dig up some sources for that. — AKADriver☎ 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, for what it's worth. Bullshido.net is the largest and most active general Martial Arts community on the Internet according to both Big-Boards.com and Alexa.com. --Phrost 06:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:Phrost, user is also a co-founder and site director of bullshido.net (disclosure of interest). Contrib history is mostly related to Bullshido articles. Phr 08:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. But, then, I would say that, becasue I read the Deletion Review commentary. -- Simon Cursitor
Comment How seriously should this big-boards.com stuff be taken? Should WP:WEB be updated to mention it? Right now, it's not mentioned there; I'm far from convinced that it should be, but am at least slightly open to the idea. Per Rgtraynor above, there are a fair number (about 60k) of Google hits on "bullshido.net", which is probably more significant than the very low number of in-links. Whether that number reaches notability, I don't know. Phr 08:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ranks at bigboards, and DRV comments. The site also seems pretty lively, so this isn't your neighbour's 10-user forum. And I think the article is pretty good - though it may need some cleanup, but AfD isn't the place for cleanup anyway. (Full disclosure: I'm a member of the forum, though I don't think I have made more than 10-20 posts there, mostly Wikipedia-related, I think... I'm definitely more of a WP editor than Bullshido member =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on 60k Google hits that appear fairly well distributed for "bullshido.com" or "bullshido.net", but only 18k for "bullshido" without "bullshido.com" or "bullshido.net", changed vote to merge. The total number of hits is reasonable but the term "bullshido" appears closely connected with the web site. I'm ok with Mangojuice's suggestion of merging Bullshido into this article rather than the other way around. 60k ghits doesn't indicate notability all by itself, but it's a respectable number. Similarly, Google search for "martial arts" gets over 65 million hits of which bullshido.net is about #80, again not a slam-dunk for notability, but certainly not too shabby. (It bothers me that two of the top 5 hits for bullshido.net are to Wikipedia). I've been studying the big-boards rankings for various sites and currently am of the opinion that they should not be considered relevant in general for WP:WEB purposes, since they're mostly limited to sites running particular types of software. I think Google rank (per above) is somewhat more informative. I'll put some more analysis of big-boards.com here or over at the WP:WEB talk page later. Here are a couple pages critical of bullshido.net: [7][8]. While not flattering to the site, the existence of such reactions is evidence of notability. I'd like to ask that one or both of those links be inserted into the article in the NPOV spirit, but I'm probably not the best person to add them under the circumstances. Phr 19:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As to print media citations, I can point to one: Thomas Becnel, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 24th January 2004, ‘It's Greek to him ; Bradenton martial artist wrestles with ancient history of modern combat’. The specific quote is "At the bullshido.com Web site, 'dedicated to exposing fraud and b.s. in the martial arts,' anonymous contributors rage back and forth. It's no-holds-barred debate." Slideyfoot 04:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.