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. NW (Talk) 03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshido.net[edit]

Bullshido.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The admin who closed the previous debate wrote, "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." With Black Kite (talk · contribs)'s permission, I have re-nominated the article.

The nominator of the previous debate 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:

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 the wub (talk · contribs). 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 "keep" votes in the previous debate stated 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) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Procedurally Close AFD you can't renominate an AFD one day after the previous one is closed because you didn't like the results. You are supposed to take it to DRV. This superfluous AFD should be procedurally closed on the grounds that it goes against protocol. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be true, if it weren't for Black Kite's closing statement, which makes it clear that this AfD is an exception to the normal rule because Cunard has explicit permission to renominate at once.

  Delete per my previous argument.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When the closing admin has granted leave to speedily renominate, there is no problem with speedy renomination. As to the merits, my !vote is delete per nom's thorough and exhaustive analysis of the sources. Cunard has said all that needs to be said. Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought the standard thing to do was to add a template asking for more discussion & re list the 1'st AfD? I understand that Cunard was acting on the recommendation on the close, but I do think that that recommendation was misplaced, as it removes the abrasive comments made buy the original nominator from general view. --Nate^t/_c 09:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Unindenting; my comment was not intended as a response to S Marshall's comment.) Relisting is at the closer's discretion; that AfD attracted enough comments that relisting may be inappropriate per WP:RELIST. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep large [1] and significant martial arts web forum. JJL (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Big-boards.com is not a reliable source. The website posts user-submitted information about the website. I can't see how Bullshido.net has a high ranking; the unreliable source you gave ranks it as the 898th most-viewed martial arts site. That's not significant enough to indicate notability. Cunard (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction 898th over all (out of 2319) and 2nd on Martial arts, the other being an exclusivily Mixed martial arts site. The stats arn't submitted by the site but you have to register to be on it, the was discussed @ length on the article talk page as is the Alexia rank. --Nate^t/_c 10:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First, ranking 898th over the 2319 sites that the unreliable source Big-boards.com is unimpressive.

  [Y]ou have to register to be on it. – I wouldn't be surprised if Bullshido.net ranked number one when compared with the sites that are listed in the Big-boards.com's directory. Any arbitrary website developer can register his/her website, so the ranking is not indicative of what ranking Bullshido.net would receive if it were compared to the other websites on the Internet, especially the ones that have not registered with this unreliable source. The fact that Bullshido.net has already received a low rating (898th most viewed out of 2319) in a small selection of websites is a strong indicator that it will rank even lower when compared to other websites. This piece of trivia from an unreliable source does not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just wanted to clarify the point as saing "898th of martial arts" was factually incorect as was saying it was user submitted, this was debated on the article talk page already. --Nate^t/_c 08:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's beside the point now, since I have explained in the preceding comment why Big-boards.com and its ranking system are unreliable.

  And it's interesting that the question of verifiability and the lack of reliable sources was brought up by —BradV at the November 2008 talk page discussion you have referenced twice. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources show that the mainstream media cites the site as the main source on the topic. [2]. The site is clearly notable in the normal sense of the word. While not traditionally reliable sources [3] provides plenty of information. So IAR keep from me. Plus I strongly dislike the relisting so rapidly. We don't bounce things around until we get the result we like, even if we are an admin. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling those sources "mainstream media" is a narrow definition of "mainstream media," to put it mildly: they are, in order, the Charlotte Observer, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the Rocky Mountain News, The University of Hawaii Kaleo, and TV.com, besides one German and one Israeli site--but the article from the German website (not a very reliable source) is about the German rapper, and the Israeli site is a message board. Drmies (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Charlotte Observer, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and the Rocky Mountain News are all clearly mainstream media. They cite this site for their articles. I'm not saying their coverage makes this topic meet WP:N, rather it supports my WP:IAR argument. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies is correct in saying that this is not mainstream media. Save for The Charlotte Observer, the other sources are local newspapers. Furthermore, Bullshido.net is not cited in stories about multiple events. Bullshido.net is mentioned in these stories only as background information about David "Race" Bannon. Bullshido.net is clearly not a website that newspapers constantly cite because it has been mentioned only in stories about one event. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting, it turns out I've been using MSM incorrectly (just looked it up), I guess I wanted "traditional media" or "print media", my mistake. My point is that papers we'd generally consider reliable have used this site as a RS themselves. To me that indicates a degree of notability (in the dictionary definition of the word, not WP:N) that combined with what coverage there is of the site indicates that we should probably have an article on it. I fully admit this is an IAR !vote... Hobit (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) According to the Wikipedia article about The Examiner, it "is a news site based in Denver, Colorado that allows local citizen journalists to share their city-based knowledge on a blog-like platform, in over 60 cities in the United States." It's fairly straightforward that this article is not a reliable source. The article is not written neutrally (e.g. "Site founder and professional snarky libertarian Neal “Phrost” Fletcher"), and the author of it even states that "If the article seems to have a positive bias, it's because I've already recommended this resource." The Examiner source, though not adequate, is much better than the sources put forward by the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination).

    We don't bounce things around until we get the result we like, even if we are an admin. Please explain. I'm not an admin, and I do not wish to be one. I re-nominated the article for deletion after asking the closing admin for leave to speedily renominate the article. The closing admin then tweaked the closing rationale, writing that "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." I re-nominated the article for deletion because no one responded to my delete arguments, either to rebut them or agree with them. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • That was directed to the closing admin, not you. Hobit (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comment is unwarranted, but there is no need to discuss that at this AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment you renominated the article for deletion a day after it was closed because you didn't like the fact that your arguments were ignored. why are you taking it so personally? The Keep votes were mostly 'IAR, this is an important site,' not 'this site has 11 nytimes sources'. yes, the sources are weak. but the article deserves to be here regardless because it's a big deal in the martial arts community. i cannot believe that you renominated this so quickly just because people ignored your arguments. oh my god Theserialcomma (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the paragraph above your comment, I explained my reasons for re-nominating the article. The closing admin agreed that the sources were insufficient and that there was not enough participation after my comment to gauge a solid consensus. Contrary to the assumption that I have been "taking it so personally", I have been debating this article in a cool and calm manner. Your last sentence though, strongly indicates that you are not calmly debating this. Furthermore, why did you ignore my arguments? And what proves that this article is a "big deal in the martial arts community"? I have not been able to find substantial evidence of this. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Bullshido members did the investigations that then turned up in the news reports the sources are about those events the article needs some clean up but AfD is not the place to take an article that needs improvement. Note prior the precious AfD 2 the nominator twice removed & redirected the article without discussion or preservation of any content, --Nate^t/_c 09:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bullshido members did the investigations ... " No, this does not establish notability; see WP:INHERITED. Furthermore, the sources that discuss David "Race" Bannon (which is the investigation you mention above) and Bullshido.net are very sparse. 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 a 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.

  I agree that the article needs improvement, but there is no way to improve the article when there are no reliable sources about it. Cunard (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INHERITED says nothing about this, you could argue WP:ONEEVENT was relevent, but as I was not saying this is the only point of notability I would disagree as the whole point of the site is investigate these kind of things. There were other cases that have been removed , and I feel that a trim may be needed but there are enough sources on for some section and more can be added if looked for.-Nate^t/_c 10:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if we disregarded WP:INHERITED, we would still be left with trivial mentions. All of those references are passing mentions and cannot be used to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Note prior the precious AfD 2 the nominator ..." – this is irrelevant to the debate because I am the nominator of this AfD and the editor you are referring to has not participated in this debate yet. Please don't bring old feuds disputes into this new debate. Cunard (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that the circumstances leading up to this AfD are relevant, If this was 6 months-a year down the line it would be less so, but as this AfD is effectively a continuation of that one, I feel it is highly relevant to the discussion at hand that the nominators have never engaged in attempting to improve the article and one tried to 'stealth' delete it. Characterising this as a feud seems OTT, I dislike his attitude, but all my interactions have been where he has made large undiscussed changes to articles I was already involved with and I have not mentioned anything other than edits related to this article here. --Nate^t/_c 10:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You may think think that this AfD should have occurred "6 months-a year down the line", but the closing admin disagrees with you and even states:

“

He is perfectly allowed to re-nominate it again. The discussion wasn't clear, a large amount of information was added to the AfD after people had !voted, and I really did consider for a long time deleting the article for lack of reliable sources, before NCing it. In fact, the more I look at that AfD, the more I believe I should have deleted it. Black Kite 12:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

• Let's not discuss how recently this article was nominated; instead, let's discuss why this website is notable.
• I have refactored "feud" to "disputes" per your concern. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cunard's excellent analysis. The only possible claim to notability is Samuel Browning's role in the exposure of David "Race" Bannon, and at most that might deserve a brief mention in his article. The website itself has not received anything but passing mentions in any reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community. Furthermore last AfD was closed yesterday. How many times a week do we have to address this?Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as long as the article and this AfD present rather outlandish claims, I think this discussion is valid. I read, for instance, that "In existence since 2002 Bullshido.net has earned mainstream media attention for at least one of its investigations." This is sourced to the Rocky Mountain News--which, of course, does not state that "Bullshido.net has earned mainstream media attention" or anything like that. Rather, the one little article in that paper reports on Browning's investigation into the claims of some writer, and what that has to do with "rooting out fraudulent practices in the field [of martial arts]" is anyone's guess. Worse, the appearance of that one, single article must be the proof for the "mainstream media attention"--if the RMN reports on it, it must have received mainstream media attention: a clear example of either flawed logic or outrageous extrapolation, or both. I have removed "mainstream," since it's obviously not true: "mainstream media attention" suggests more than one--and countering that "mainstream" modifies "media" doesn't help much either: more truthful would be Bullshido.net was mentioned, one single time, in one local newspaper in 2006 as the website where an investigator posted his exposure of an impostor.

    Mind you, that RMN article, plus another one from the same paper about Bannon, and an article from The Believer, an online magazine of doubtful status, are the only references not from Bullshido forums or other websites. Let's look: the aforementioned article states that Browning published his expose on Bannon (a writer, not someone who runs a martial arts school), which was triggered by Bannon's claim to be a black belt--but that's all the article has to say about Bullshido. The second RMN article is about Bannon and doesn't mention Bullshido. The article from The Believer is an interview with Ashida Kim, whose investigation by Bullshido could be called relevant to the exposure of fraudulent practices in the field of martial arts--but the article doesn't even mention Bullshido. (I see now that Cunard has made these comments in the previous AfD--but apparently they bear repeating.)

    In sum, there simply is no significant, in-depth discussion of this webforum in any reliable source, including those mentioned by Hobit, above. "Ignore all rules"? I think keep-voters have to invoke that, since there is no way this subject is notable according to our guidelines. Given the comments by the closing admin on the previous AfD, which closed as "No consensus," there is nothing wrong with this renomination. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • On reviewing those comments were solicited by the nominator. The opinion is still valid, but is should be clear why the comments are there.--Nate^t/_c 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying that an notable expose published on a website, and partly run on that site has no baring on the site's notability? --Nate^t/_c 15:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calling this a "notable expose" is a bit of a stretch. We're talking about a small handful of local newspaper articles. No evidence of national or international notability. *** Crotalus *** 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point, not internationally notable dispite the pretensions of the subject, but it is still part of a whole suggesting notability in my view. --Nate^t/_c 16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • RE: Nate's comment: no, I did not say it was notable, but yes, I am saying that the publication on that forum does not much enhance the notability of the forum. If it had, it would have been remarked on in other media (pace CoM's commment below) and it hasn't. And in regards to CoM's comments, below, will you show me actual significant, in-depth discussion of Bullshido.net in reliable independent sources? Drmies (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If Bullshido.net had only been mentioned in an unreliable and POV pushing source like the New York Times as something cooked up by Judith Miller, Jayson Blair or Frank Rich, I would support deletion. But it's been noted and discussed in far more reliable and trustworthy media sources like the Rocky Mountain News (nicknamed the Rocky, a daily newspaper published in Denver, Colorado from April 23, 1859, until February 27, 2009) the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, The University of Hawaii at Manoa's Ka Leo O Hawaii paper, Charlotte Observer and TV.com, besides one German and one Israeli site (so it's internationally significant!). ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ahem. Please look at the actual German article and admire the video featuring the German rapper Bushido. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • So you're suggesting a merge to Bullshido? Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Preservation of sourced content is very important Doc if we're to be the sum of all human knowledge. Deletion, like blocking, should be a last resort! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • No I'm not. And don't you give me any ideas about blocking, cause you're first on the list when I get that mop. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • No; there is nothing to merge. Bullshido itself is not notable; I've checked for sources and have been unable to find any. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per being noted and discussed in reliable independent sources. Media don't like to cover other media, so the extent of coverage this site has received indicates to me that it's quite notable and meets our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please list the sources that you believe establish notability. The sources mentioned above are passing mentions that do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question is there a valid link to the Charlotte Observer article, when I go to look at it, I am redirected to the main page, and my search of the newspaper website for Bullshido came up empty. The Rockey Mountain News does not qualify in my eyes as significant coverage, and neither do any of the others (or they don't qualify as reliable sources). --kelapstick (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello K, I disagree: the Rocky is reliable enough for me, but it has nothing of substance to say about our subject. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant was it didn't count as significant coverage, I would absolutely count the Rocky Mountain News as a reliable source. My point was it was the most of the others were not reliable, and if they were, did not address the subject in detail.--kelapstick (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a link to the Observer story [4]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link provided by ChildofMidnight is to an abstract that is mainly about David "Race" Bannon. Bullshido.net is mentioned only in passing, so notability is not established.

    For example, a second article from Rocky Mountain News is about David "Race" Bannon with a passing reference to Bullshido.net. The only time this website is mentioned 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." I cannot see how this source provides nontrivial, meaningful discussion about Bullshido.net. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The link I provided is not to an abstract. It's to a lengthy article that can be freely accessed online with some basic information. Far from being a passing mention it states:

"A Connecticut lawyer named Samuel Browning runs a Web site called Bullshido.net, which exposes people who inflate their martial arts credentials. Bannon claims to be a third-degree black belt in hapkido -- a Korean martial art -- and has written for kung fu magazines.

Browning spent two years checking dozens of details in Bannon's book -- down to the number of floors in a London hotel where Bannon says he killed a man. In February, Browning published a 10,000-word piece online that disputes most of the key stories in Bannon's book."

• • • That's from just one of the sources. So there's plenty to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for posting the portion of the article that mentions Bullshido.net. Your quote proves my point that these references are all passing mentions. Bullshido.net is only mentioned in a tiny phrase that lacks significant context. No, this passing mention does not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(post e/c)Groovy, from the snippet you provided it looks like the article is about David Race Bannon, and I am sure (I reserve the right to be corrected) that they provided no more significant coverage than the RMN did.--kelapstick (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. That's what we have. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As kelapstick (talk · contribs) said in his vote below, "Insignificant coverage in reliable sources ≠ passing the general notability guidelines." The source you mentioned above is a passing mention that does not establish notability. Likewise, the rest of the sources that have been used to fluff up this article provide insignificant coverage. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs is certainly not a passing mention. You can argue that it's still not enough even with the other reliable sources noted, but I think you'd be making a mistake. A merge might be a more reasonable position since there is an appropriate target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of the article that mentions Bullshido.net is: "a Web site called Bullshido.net, which exposes people who inflate their martial arts credentials." One phrase is not "significant coverage". One phrase is not "two paragraphs", so don't inflate the depth of coverage. A merge to Bullshido is not viable for preserving the content because Bullshido has the same problems as this article. Both Bullshido.net and Bullshido lack nontrivial coverage in reliable sources and both are composed of original research, so they both do not belong here.

... not enough even with the other reliable sources. The other reliable sources are also passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Insignificant coverage in reliable sources + Significant coverage in unreliable sources ≠ passing the general notability guidelines. --kelapstick (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

• Keep The Rocky Mountain news and Charlotte Observer mentions should be sufficient for notability. Blowfish (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they are not. As refuted above, both sources are passing mentions, which do not establish notability. Why do you think passing mentions establish notability? Cunard (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that relative to what one would expect for coverage of a website, the citations are sufficient. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. Blowfish (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Blowfish has very suspicious account activity. I'm getting really tired of Bullshido's manipulation of WP for their own promotional activities. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And you seem to be wikipedia-stalking me. But in the interests of getting along, I'll assume that you're doing it with the purest of intentions. Regards, Blowfish (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I simply noticed a very obvious pattern when it comes to Bullshido-related articles. New editors and IPs suddenly show up just to vote. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. The lack of reliable sources has been a problem in the article since 2006; see Talk:Bullshido.net/Archive 1#Edits for "greater neutrality". Cunard (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As pointed out, there are no reliable sources about Bullshido. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per the better arguments already given. But, let's face it, this is going to be renominated until it gets deleted by wiki lawyers with no will to improve the articles in question as it conflicts with their personal crusade. This has happened to Ashida Kim already, and if we look elsewhere in the MA project you'll see the same attacks against certain articles with a common denominator. -- Iscariot (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The arguments advanced above have been weak. The only sources that have been provided are unreliable sources, as well as reliable sources that provide trivial coverage.

  Your argument about Ashida Kim has little relevance to this AfD, save that both Bullshido.net and Ashida Kim lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In discussion on my talk page Kelapstick suggested creating an article on Samuel Browning, the website's creator, noting: "I would support an article about Browning before the site, probably would anyway as I think he has the coverage." So that's also worth considering. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to that article subject and I want to thank Kelapstick for the very sensible suggestion! Whether we keep the content under the current article title or decide to merge it into an article on the site's creator, there's no sense in deleting substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. So we can probably speedy close this discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would, provided all content is supported with reliable sources, there are only two sentences in this article that are supported as such. The coverage in the sources covered are more related to Browning. I do think the suggestion is getting off topic. Rather than discuss new articles, we should keep on the subject at hand, which is the proposed deletion of bullshido.net. --kelapstick (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This article also cannot be merged to Samuel Browning, since Browning does not have enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. The only sources about him are the sources that are about how he exposed David "Race" Bannon; not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, according to Slideyfoot (talk · contribs), Samuel Browning is not the owner of Bullshido.net: "[t]he site is actually run by Neal Fletcher, not Browning". Therefore, even if Samuel Browning were notable, this website cannot be merged since it is only tangentially related to Browning. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly Kelapstick disagrees. But I have no objection to covering Browning in this article. So that certainly reinforces the argument to keep this one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Samuel Browning is a redirect to David "Race" Bannon#Bannon's arrest. Neither Samuel Browning nor Bullshido.net is notable (see my explanation in my preceding comment for Browning's lack of notability), so I can't see why merging a non-notable topic to another non-notable topic is the suggested outcome. This most certainly does not "reinforce the argument to keep this one". Cunard (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look for something else on Browning (assuming there would be something secondary about him being a prosecutor available), and found nothing, so I would change my position on having an article about him (but again this is getting off the topic of this AfD). There is only enough sourced material for a mention of both Browning and the website in the Bannon article. --kelapstick (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment worst case scenario we should WP:IAR and keep because it's the second most popular martial arts website in the entire universe. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Which reliable source verifies that Bullshido.net is the "the second most popular martial arts website in the entire universe"? The Big-boards.com reference provided by Nate has already been refuted as being unreliable. As I said above, "only websites that register are included in the Big-boards.com directory, so the ranking is not indicative of what ranking Bullshido.net would receive if it were compared to all the other websites on the Internet, especially the ones that have not registered with this unreliable source."

  We should not WP:IAR and keep this article. Why should this article be deleted? It should be sent to the digital dustbin because the entire thing is filled with original research and fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Cunard (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable, fails WP:N and no significant coverage otherwise. easy delete Tothwolf (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• how incredibly original Theserialcomma (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable blog for ninja fanboys/zealous martial-arts enthusiasts, has not been demonstrated to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. L0b0t (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IAR as this article clearly is improving the quality of Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Original research that fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability does not improve the quality of Wikipedia.

  Unsourced, non-neutral WP:BLP violations detract from Wikipedia's quality; see here: Kim reacted badly to these investigations ... Cunard (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Those investigation we're carried out the site WP policy does not dictate what it reports on that has already happened, or are you suggesting that if someone dosen't like something in Panorama we should delete the article on that? I'm not saying BS is as notable as that just that the point is invalid. --Nate^t/_c 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any original research or non-neutral content can be removed. The subject is notable based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources over several years. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assesment. It has been the subject of insignificant coverage in reliable independent sources. And if we removed all the non-reliable sources the article would be: Bullshido.net is a martial arts website that was involved in the exposing of David "Race" Bannon as a fraud. There is no other source that is valid as a cite for use in the article. Although I am willing to agree to disagree with CoM on his assessment of what constitutes significant coverage.--kelapstick (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually ,there is a lot more in the sources than that about the site's creator and his background, about the site's significance, about it's value and hits etc. etc. etc. I think your vote should be discounted on the basis of your misrepresenting what's in the sources, especially after I generously transcribed some of the content from one of the sources for you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable source was that?. Because the Charlotte Observer only mentions Browning and Bullshido.net in two paragraphs, and those paragraphs are made up of four sentences, total, not each. As I said, not significant coverage in my eyes, but you are free to your own interpretation. --kelapstick (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ChildofMidnight, don't inflate the coverage. The article you transcribed above provides less than a sentence in coverage about Bullshido.net. As I said above, The only part of the article that mentions Bullshido.net is: "a Web site called Bullshido.net, which exposes people who inflate their martial arts credentials." One phrase is not "significant coverage". One phrase is not "two paragraphs", so don't inflate the depth of coverage. The only reason that Bullshido.net received a single phrase in the article is because one of its members, Samuel Browning, posted on the Bullshido.net's forum about how he debunked David Race Bannon. You assert that Samuel Browning is the site's creator, but according to Slideyfoot (talk · contribs), Samuel Browning is not the owner of Bullshido.net: "[t]he site is actually run by Neal Fletcher, not Browning".

  Where is the coverage about the site's significance and its value? There are none. Where is the coverage about the site's hits? None. The lack of significant, nontrivial coverage in any secondary, reliable source means that Bullshido.net fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Notability (web), which states that an article should be kept if "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." For "multiple," we have two. For "non-trivial," we have none. You can't write an article if it has no significant coverage from Reliable sources.
  What does not count is "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." Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Challenge question. Does deleting this article improve Wikipedia? If so, how? JBsupreme (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said to you above: Original research that fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability does not improve the quality of Wikipedia.

  Unsourced, non-neutral WP:BLP violations detract from Wikipedia's quality; see here: Kim reacted badly to these investigations ... This clearly shows why the deletion of Bullshido.net would improve the encyclopedia.

• Although the first paragraph is more relevant to WP:BLPs, it is applicable to all articles. In a nutshell: the lack of verifiability means that the original research in Bullshido.net may or may not be true. Since there is no way to verify this information, false information may start seeping in. This will damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Those investigation we're carried out the site, WP policy does not dictate what it reports on that has already happened, or are you suggesting that if someone dosen't like something in Panorama we should delete the article on that? I'm not saying BS is as notable as that just that the point is invalid. --Nate^t/_c 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the first sentence of your reply, but I can respond to the following sentences. If Panorama were solely composed of original research, it should be rewritten because there are plenty of sources about it. Bullshido.net is solely composed of original research, but it cannot be written because it is a non-notable website and there are no sources about it. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The off wiki actions of an individual, group, or program have no baring on if an article on the subject is valild. So the argument is essentialy null, it dose not supprot or oppose notability so does not belong in an AfD disscusion. --Nate^t/_c 09:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not arguing about off-wiki actions in my preceding comment. Which comment are of mine are your responding to? Cunard (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Very fair and reasoned response. If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, ALL articles run the risk of false information seeping in. This is the very nature of Wikipedia. When that happens, we remove it. If it happens too often, we protect it. If there is original research in an article we can and should remove that too. How does this article appear if we make all the necessary corrections. Is it completely vacant, or not? JBsupreme (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If we make all the necessary removal of original research, the article will lack sufficient context. As kelapstick (talk · contribs) said above, the article would only consist of: "Bullshido.net is a martial arts website that was involved in the exposing of David "Race" Bannon as a fraud." I doubt that this piece of information would improve Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  ::the way to find out what would be left is to discuss the individual items on the talk p. The article has potential content. We cannot delete an article because if it were edited aggressively, it might possibly lack sufficient content--only if you can show that it necessarily would, and I do not think that in most cases --including this--one could show that. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My analysis of the sources above shows that none are sufficient to source the information in the article; nor are they useful for the creation of a shorter article — even a stub — that does not have original research. I have not "edited aggressively" anything from the article, so you may judge the article on what it looks like right now. In the searches I performed on Google, Google News Archive, Google Books, and Yahoo!, I could not find any reliable sources that could expand this beyond what kelapstick (talk · contribs) said above (which I quoted in my reply to JBSupreme): "Bullshido.net is a martial arts website that was involved in the exposing of David "Race" Bannon as a fraud." That single sentence does not improve Wikipedia. If an editor were to edit out the original research, only that single sentence will remain.

  The lack of reliable sources means that the article fails WP:WEB and the presence of solely original research means that this article is not verifiable and may contain false information. Those are the reasons why I believe that this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2009 (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.