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. Cirt (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McDojo[edit]

McDojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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. *** Crotalus *** 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Clean Don't disagree that article needs cleanup but delete not the right tack. Topic is notable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep topic is notable. it would be a disservice to the encyclopedia to delete, and the nomination seems wp:pointy Theserialcomma (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After this edit VERY pointy --Nate^t/_c 08:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't seem to understand WP:POINT. There has been no disruption of Wikipedia. Nominating poorly sourced articles for deletion is not disruptive, it's standard procedure. *** Crotalus *** 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing an article without discussion, and not preserving any of the content seems disruptive to me. As does nominating/stealth deleting articles related to one that you have already nominated for AfD twice, when there has been no recent discussion on the issues. --Nate^t/_c 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple sources, renaming is potentiality an option to avoid a neologisms but I'm not sure to what. --Nate^t/_c 08:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two sources that mention the term in passing. How is it possible to write anything about the term "McDojo" without resorting to original research? *** Crotalus *** 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'In passing' is a miss-characterisation, one of the sources used it in the title! Also AfD is not the place to take an article that needs a re-write, you could have tried removing objectionable parts or raising the issue on that talk page, they way you are behaving feels more and more like a grudge. Also I think I just said that renaming to avoid a neologism might be a good idea! No one is saying that it is a finished article, just that it might be one day. --Nate^t/_c 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read that article? I did. There are exactly two uses of the term. Yes, one use is in the title. The other use is 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. How can we build an article on something like this? *** Crotalus *** 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the whole article is on the topic hence my saying a Re-name might be in order! --Nate^t/_c 08:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate^t/_c 08:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to a similar article such as Bullshido. Concur that the nomination seems WP:POINTy. Apparently Wikipedia is now to be yet another web site, along with E-Budo, MartialTalk, etc., that bans Bullshido.net--related material. However, McDojo may be used by that group but is hardly their own term. Black Belt Magazine and NAPMA's magazine would be a good place to look for additional sources.JJL (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:BURDEN which is official Wikipedia policy. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I am challenging this article and I demand reliable, non-trivial sources. It's not enough to say they might be out there. Let's see them. *** Crotalus *** 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Nate^t/_c 08:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure this article can stand on its own, sources don't indicate that it is a widely used term. Could it possibly be merged with similar articles (Bullshido, Bullshido.net, 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 "?!" 09:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Nate^t/_c 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It probably could be retitled to something with a wider scope, something like "Controversies in introductory training of the Japanese martial arts" with a section about the particular epithet McDojo, but the article is about a real, notable thing, and we should give it time to develop. For instance the practice of requiring a testing fee and ten different colored belts ( most karate schools have just four colored belts, with stripes of electrical tape added when the student reaches the next dan, or level, students pay a flat rate for the course regardless of how often they test, and there are no promises or special tracks to earn a black belt faster. ) Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:34, 19 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.