-
Bullshido.net (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
This AfD was a particularly contentious one, and the issues were numerous and complicated, especially since the page itself was undergoing improvements as the discussion progressed. The closing admin's relative inexperience may have led him to make a hasty and incorrect decision by reason of failing to grasp the issues fully. I
have asked him to reconsider and he has declined, accusing various Keep proponents of "argument by exhaustion". This suggests that the volume of the discussion may have exceeded his ability to grasp it.For example, the closing admin's summary of my argument is factually false. My argument was that the addition of
four
more
reliable
sources should carry weight. The statement that the Real Fighter article was not neutral based upon some colorful language suggests that he is inexperienced with publications about mixed martial arts. Also, he gave us no time whatever to contact Sean Treanor and learn more from him; in any case, an article hosted on Stanford's Graduate Program in Journalism webpage, and not on a student's personal website within stanford.edu, could hardly have failed to undergo peer review or professorial supervision. Furthermore, regarding the Real Fighter article,
Stephen Koepfer, the President of the
American Sambo Association, took time out of his day to inform the discussion about how the article got produced: My name is Stephen Koepfer and I wrote the original Bullshido article/investigation on Geraci. I wanted to share my account regarding how the RF acticle came into being, since my name has come up here. Sacha Feinman, a noted journalist
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sacha-feinman/17/400/976 contacted me about writing an article about Geraci. He was, as any good journalist would be, concerned with not simply regurgitating our investigation. However, reading my article, he felt it was well written, ivestigated, etc. He felt it would be a good springboard for further investigation. So, I provided all my sources to Feinman. He vetted the entire Bullshido piece, found it to be verifiable, and continued to investigate the case in further directions which Bullshido had not covered. As Feinman noted himself it was the Bullshido article which formed the basis for his own further investigation. Feinman and I did not collaborate on his article, other than my making introductions to sources and the subject, Geraci. Feinman was not paid by Bullshido, nor is he even a member of the site. He came to us because of our notability. I fail to see how the RF article, regardless of how much or little it sepcifically mentions Bullshido in print, could not be considered a notable reference for Bullshido. Our ivnestigation served as the springboard for his, he came to us because of our notability, he personally stated this as such, and the subject of the investigation itself (Geraci) is quoted in the RF article as saying the Bullshido investigation was accurate.
This addresses both the neutrality and the reliability issues, and the closing admin didn't mention it in his summary. Nor did he mention Carol Kaur's well-reasoned argument, which contained novel points to which no one had a reasonable answer. The only policies on which he seemed to be amenable to a flexible reading were those involving the definition of consensus. If Bullshido's similarity to an epithet is no grounds for considering its lack of coverage in a different light, neither are the repeated calls for deletion a basis on which to go with an impossibly loose definition of consensus. I respectfully submit that his summary of consensus was factually wrong on several points, and ask you to reconsider.
Cy Q. Faunce (
talk) 21:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse A thoughful close well within discretion. Only raw !vote-counting could justify a "no consensus" close. There weren't many keep !votes that made cogent arguments at all, and those that were left aren't sufficient to stand in the way of the consensus to delete.--
Mkativerata (
talk) 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Exposing martial arts fraud is a noble enterprise, and I'm glad Bullshido.net exists. But the fact that it's a noble cause doesn't, in itself, justify an article. Like all notability disputes on Wikipedia, it can be boiled down from a subjective argument to an objective assessment by careful analysis of the sources Cy Q. Faunce lists. There are four to consider.
1.) The youtube video I can't evaluate. Youtube isn't normally a reliable source on Wikipedia, but, a Slovakian national news channel might well be. I don't speak the language and I hope an uninvolved editor who does will be able to tell us whether this news report was actually about Bullshido.net. 2.) The Kungfu Magazine source seems reliable to me, but the coverage of Bullshido.net was a passing mention. 2.) The .pdf source contains significant coverage of Bullshido.net, but who's Sean Treanor? Is he really a journalism student at Stanford University, and if so, what makes that a reliable source? I certainly don't see any evidence of the editorial oversight and fact-checking that we expect in material we call "reliably-sourced". 4.) I wasn't able to find the coverage in realfighter magazine, and I'd be grateful for a more explicit link. I believe it's not yet shown that the deleting admin made an error, but I reserve my !vote for the time being, in the hope that it'll be possible to produce a decent evaluation of sources 1 and 4.—
S Marshall
T/
C 21:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Before it was deleted, the article said "The Bullshido investigation of Khristian Geraci was featured in an article in Issue 28 of Real Fighter Magazine", implying this reference isn't actually about bullshido.net at all.
Hut 8.5 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Did you read Stephen Koepfer's comment above? Try again. The article was largely based upon our investigation.
Cy Q. Faunce (
talk) 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I don't want this discussion to become another 30,000 word trainwreck, so I'm only going to explain this once. The Real Fighter article will only prove that bullshido.net satisfies
WP:N if bullshido.net is the subject of the article - i.e. it addresses bullshido.net directly and in detail. What you've provided here indicates that it is an article about Khristian Geraci, and the only connection to bullshido.net is that it cites bullshido.net and is based on the work of someone at the forum. This isn't sufficient. We're not interested in whether the author of the article considers bullshido.net to be reliable, or whether bullshido.net was mentioned in print, or even whether it was mentioned approvingly. What we're interested in is how much information the article gives us about bullshido.net, and all indications are that it's very little. I apologise for explaining this in so much detail, but my previous interactions with you indicate you aren't going to get the point otherwise.
Hut 8.5 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- First: Moderate your tone. This is a deletion review, not your user talk page.
The article summarizes Bullshido's investigative findings in detail; everything it says about Geraci's claims is something Bullshido mentioned to Real Fighter. This isn't a question of how Real Fighter regards Bullshido, but of how extensive the coverage of Bullshido was in the article. They summarized our work at length. The type of article you demand is not what is specified in
WP:NOTE, and is what people in the press call a "puff piece". I have already shown that several of our sources were not "trivial coverage" as defined in
WP:WEB. Once again, moderate your tone at once. Your anger is inappropriate to this process.
Cy Q. Faunce (
talk) 23:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- If you want a translation of the video, I can provide one, but I'd like to know if that would actually matter. The KFM article was written by the author of the Bullshido Bannon investigation and was a summary of that investigation; it did not mention the name a hundred times for the same reason that fish don't take much note of water. Sean Treanor is a reporter for Die Zeit, and was a graduate student at the Stanford Program in Journalism, not just "a college student"; the article was produced under the supervision of a professor and was held to journalistic standards.
Cy Q. Faunce (
talk) 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- It would matter to me. If you show me significant coverage in reliable sources, then I'll consider that you've explicitly refuted the central argument for deleting this material, and I rather think that in that case, there are others who could be persuaded to that view as well.—
S Marshall
T/
C 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Fair enough.
Here it is.
Cy Q. Faunce (
talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure. The closing admin provided a thorough and well thought-out closing rationale which has been praised by several editors. If we decided what to include on grounds of "worthiness", I would have no problem with the inclusion if this subject, but alas, on the grounds of notability, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion at the minute.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse this AfD became extremely long because of the involvement of editors associated with the subject of the article (they advertised it on
their facebook page, for instance). Just about every conceivable argument for keeping it was brought up, and discussed in extensive detail, and yet it hasn't been demonstrated that the subject meets
Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a fact that the well-thought out close reflected.
Hut 8.5 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- That's probably one of the best closing rationales I've seen on any AFD, let alone a contentious one like this one. I don't see how the closing admin was in error with the decision; it was well within the discretionary limits, and thus I endorse it.
Tony Fox
(arf!) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. The closing admin committed no error, let alone clear error. Moreover, the fact that lots of keep !voters are SPAs as well as the canvassing Hut 8.5 pointed out provides an independent ground upon which to endorse.
Tim Song (
talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse as within admin discretion. A NC close would also have been reasonable. I'm not overly fond of a closer making their own calls about the sources value (that's what the discussion is for) but in this case the question was mostly black-and-white though S Marshal's concerns are certainly valid and the first source he mentions would seem to be reliable). I will note that a single RS on the topic (say in a martial arts magazine) would be more than enough to recreate this in my opinion.
Hobit (
talk) 00:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Hold the endorse train a moment, please. I've just read the transcript Cy Q. Faunce provides and if it's accurate then to me, it really does look like significant coverage in a reliable source. Which leaves me with egg on my face, because it means I've been wrong for the last six months and goodness knows how many deletion debates; I've been consistently saying "delete" and I shouldn't have been. My position now is that we need input from a Slovakian editor who can tell us more about that TV programme.
Whether or not this is endorsed, I also think we need to consider that now "Bullshido" is a redlink, searching for it takes you to all sorts of places on Wikipedia where Bullshido.net is used as a source. A lot of these are BLP articles, and, well, read them. Bullshido's a site that's about exposing fraudsters, remember? Also, whatever we decide about Bullshido.net, I was surprised to see just now that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any coverage of martial arts fraud at all. (We used to have a page but it was a redirect to Bullshido.) That needs more thought, I suspect. And finally, if we decide not to have an article there, then after all the Bullshido-related drama I really don't think it's a good idea to have a redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to write in that space. In such a case I'd like to redirect it and I'd welcome input on what would be an appropriate target.—
S Marshall
T/
C 00:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Would it be sufficient to get an English-language statement from
Roland Kubina, news director of channel JOJ, to the effect that the translation is valid? I am not sure I can, but I can try. Failing that, yes, getting a Slovakian editor to comment would be an idea.
Cy Q. Faunce (
talk) 03:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The name of the programme is "Črepiny", which Google thinks is something like "splinters" or "fragments". Their
website (automated translation) describes it as "Shocking stories for adults only". They also have something called "Črepiny PLUS",
[1] descibed as "World unbelievable facts", which seems to be discussing things like angels and the zodiac. I don't think this is a news programme as claimed.
Hut 8.5 09:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Surely thats original research? Without a proper translation, or even a good one (see the one provided above) your thoughts on this are just that, your thoughts. Does this source count depends on whether you want it to, and discarding it as a shock news style programme sounds like an easy way to ignore it just beacuse its not in English...
Onesti (
talk) 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- From the reporter in the program: "the programme is called Crepiny which means broken or scrap glass. It is now hybernated, officially, which means it could be revived but it doesn't seem real in the near future. It was the only serious news magazine of our TV, where we had the time and space to work on serious topics, often following them all over the country for days or even weeks and making a 7, 10 or even more minutes long report... Topics were of a broad range, including personal stories of people in peril (like a guy I befriended during shooting, who got attacked by 2 guys he called upon to stop harrassing a girl and he ended up on a wheelchair), reflections on historic events (voting for a new pope, remembering the 1968 invasion o the Warsaw pact into Czechoslovakia). Basically anything, that is interesting and has peoples story behind them, that allows to go in deeper. Definitely not a tabloid, like most of our programmes right now..." So there you have it folks: Crepiny is the leading news magazine television program in Slovakia. I suppose the US equivalent is what? 20/20? You asked for the reference , and we complied; you asked for a translation, and we complied; you questioned the programme format, and you have that information before you. So the only question that remains is ARE WE DONE HERE? --08:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
--08:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mthai66 (
talk •
contribs)
- There's nothing wrong with editors checking to see if sources are reliable.
WP:OR only applies to the article namespace. I admit that I don't speak Slovak and could be wrong, but these links are better than nothing. I don't think I would be very enthusiastic about this TV programme even if it was in English.
Hut 8.5 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Ok that makes sense about OR, I usually dont get involved in this side of wiki editing. I have to say I'm not the greatest of fans of these types of news pieces, but don't it seem reasonable to await a wikipedia editor who can speak the language to give a rounded view on the programme, rather than a judgement based on incomplete facts? Saying that, the translation given above seems to meet the requirements for verfication doesn't it? The arguement is whether the source is notable, and I would suggest it is we cannot look at this from a US or UK POV solely
Onesti (
talk) 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Deletion review is about reviewing the way in which the discussion was closed. The sources highlighted in this deletion review have already been considered in the AfD. There has been plenty of time to try to convince the community that the sources are adequate. The discussion shows that wasn't unsuccessful and so closing as delete was correct. I don't think this AfD was ever particularly complicated, the main issues were simply whether the notability guidelines were satisfied and sources would allow for appropriate verification of the content. I don't believe the length of the discussion necessarily reflects the complexity of those issues but rather the desperation of some of those who are connected with the subject in some way to see the article kept.
Adambro (
talk) 08:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, entirely correct and courageous closure. There is a number of articles like this which have been kept by numbers and
argumentum ad nauseam over ages, which we are finally getting around to deleting for lack of decent sourcing. More, please.
Stifle (
talk) 08:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure. Close handled beautifully, with meatpuppetry taken into account.
SchuminWeb (
Talk) 15:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Strongly endorse. Sock and meat puppetry aside, the close was good and very well explained.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 16:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Note: Nominating party, [[
User:Cy Q. Faunce is now under a community ban, so maybe this can be procedurally closed?
Niteshift36 (
talk) 16:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
- I believe this is about bullshido.net, not C Q Faunce. Whether or not that user has been banned does not reflect on the arguments put forward about bullshido.net. Please do not close down this discussion because one user has been banned, rather judge the request based on the merits of the arguments. It is my understanding that this has been requested because some of the arguments put forward in the deletion discussion have been overlooked, or misconstrued.
Onesti (
talk) 17:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Nominations for deletion are procedurally closed when the nominator is banned.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Certainly we need to allow a good faith effort to be made in locating a Slovakian editor. Or does that make too much sense? Considering that you have a
demonstrable
interest
in
Frank
Dux, whose animosity towards Bullshido.net is legendary, I think you should consider recusing yourself. --
Mthai66 (
talk) 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Are you trying to be funny? A) Dux has nothing to do with this article. B) I have no interest in Dux. I have an interest in keeping unsourced bullshit of a self-promotional nature off Wikipedia. You, of all people, should appreciate my keeping his self-aggrandizing crapola off here since he is a demonstrated fraud. Instead, you try some lame, backwards, nonsensical attempt at saying I have a COI? You know what sport? If you have a COI complaint, here the link to where to file it
WP:COIN. Take your ridiculous accusation there. Tell you what, just for fun, I won't even respond to the allegation if you take it there. Then you can come back here and apologize in front of everyone when they tell you there is no COI.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not up to speed on the procedure here. Can you point me in the right direction so I can make myself conversant with them?
Onesti (
talk) 18:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, as "I didn't like the way it went" is not a valid reason to go to DRV.
Tarc (
talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse and applaud The spectacular climax to a coordinated set of simultaneuous deletion requests (McDojo, Bullshido and Bullshido.net). Shall we let the emergence of hard evidence satisfying [WP:N] dissuade us from putting the final nail in the coffin? When we have the nail all picked out already? No way! Nom openly chomped at the bit to get started, nominated two word/term articles connected only by subject for simultaneous deletion, and openly canvassed for editors voting "Delete" in previous nominations. Shall we let all that go to waste simply because the basis for this deletion has evaporated? Not on my watch --
Mthai66 (
talk) 18:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Do you have any evidence of improper
WP:CANVASS behavior by
Cunard (
talk ·
contribs) (the nominator of this AfD) or anyone else? Diffs would be useful. —
Scien
tizzle 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Mthai66 is almost certainly referring to messages Cunard left for people who had participated in a previous DRV of this article:
[2] for example. However these notices were neutrally worded and didn't only go to people who wanted the article to be deleted this doesn't violate
WP:CANVASS.
Hut 8.5 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Do Not Endorse, I have a points I would like to make. First, regarding the RF article. Any assertion that Bullshido was only mentioned trivially or had little to do with the published article is completely false. I don't know how much more clear a link to bullshido there could be. I realize that the article is not about Bullshido.net. However, I feel that the article clearly establishes notability both generally and in large part accoring to WP guidelines. The article is "reliable" and while the topic covers Geraci (not Bullshido.net), it notes bullshido.net significantly as the stimulus and source for the topic being written about. The article notes the accuracy of the Bullshido.net investigation/article which spawned the RF article. A request for a web link is a red herring as many published works will never have any kind of web presence in full. The article fulfills the definition of "source" as it is an objective seondary source...and additionally Feinman (the RF writer) fully vetted our investion. This is plainly an objective secondary source. This also demonstrates that the RF article in "Independent of the subject". To request a source that had been solely dedicated to writing about bullshido.net IMO is a near impossibility as Bullshido.net is the primary source for martial arts fraud discussion/web publication. Does someone need to write an article about the NY Times to demonstrate that it is notable? Bullshido.net may not existon the same scale as the NYT, however the point is that The NYT may likely fail under the standards you hold bullshido.net to. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Americansambo (
talk •
contribs) 18:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —
Americansambo (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- falty editorial decision Regarding the fact that it seems no editor here has actually read the RF article in full, nor read the Slovakian transcripts prior to the decision to shut down the article, I suggest that the desicion to delete was premature. According to the Notability Guidelines "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N It seems there has not been enough "active effort" on the part of WP editors prior to deletion. S. Marshall's reconsideration is evidence of this. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Americansambo (
talk •
contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- send back to afd with a few caveats- After cleaning off the sarcasm that dripped onto my computer from Mthai66's post, I put some thought into this. The problem with an article that has been brought to afd as many times as this, where each and every AFD has been fraught with wiki-drama of the highest magnitude, is that nothing ever gets decided. Everyones already said what they want, and very few are going to be convinced of the other side. Its essentially a week long internet shouting match. In the end, we're left with one closer's interpretation of the discussion, which leaves some unhappy and others with a feeling of exultation. None of this is a good way to write an encyclopedia. And with new evidence of possible notability having been unearthed at this DRV (which DRV is not properly designed to handle, thats for AFD, if I'm not mistaken), a new discussion, imho, SHOULD happen. But how to remove the rancor? I'm thinking it might make sense- open up an entirely NEW afd. However, the caveat with this new afd is that NOBODY who participated in any of the previous discussions should be allowed to contribute. Nobody. The re-open would be a procedural afd opened by a neutral admin, which can lay out all the facts, and ground rules. I realize this is not the normal way we do AFD's, but then again, this is not a normal afd, and I think a bit of thinking outside the usual box is going to be needed to resolve this issue once and for all. It goes without saying that sockpuppeting for either side should be dealt with harshly. I don't expect this idea to actually be in place, but I wanted it to be mentioned anyway.
Umbralcorax (
talk) 19:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I apologize for the sarcasm. I have been arguing these points for *days* and am getting edgy. I would be very surprised if a mechanism existed for implementing your discussion. Also, bear in mind that relatively people knowledgable about Bullshido.net have an understanding of Wikipedia standards, and most (if not all) of those have already contributed. Excluding all of them would leave it an asymetrical debate to be sure. --
Mthai66 (
talk) 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- No need for apologies, at least as far as I'm concerned. I understand your frustration, having gone through it myself in a few places. Its why i specifically tried to avoid participating in this AFD, because I know me, and I know how easily I can be sucked into it and how immature I can act when getting sucked into something like that (I still have some shame about how I acted when it came to Boxxy, for whatever thats worth).
Umbralcorax (
talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
you cant be serious "Nominations for deletion are procedurally closed when the nominator is banned. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)" So regardless of the validity of a discussion, banning the person who raised the issue will end the discussion? That seems an easy way to repress any dissenting opinions. Ban the guy so you don't need to talk about it any longer.
Americansambo (
talk) 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I am serious. It is routinely done.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Serious?. So it is routine to silence dissenters via banning? Or is it routine to close discussions begun by someone who has later been banned? Sarcasm aside, whether it is routine does not matter to me. A request has been made by Onesti to see the policy which states this is how WP handles such cases. The folks here have stayed within the letter of the law when it came to seleting the bullshido.net article. So, I suggest that it does not matter if you routinely shut down discussions started by banned users. I would like to know the WP policy on this matter.
Americansambo (
talk) 02:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- And I've answered him. Apparently, you suffer from the same affliction that he does. You see things that aren't there. I never said it was a policy. It IS, however, a routine practice. I know they both begin with the same letter, but they don't mean the same thing. Further, be careful with your "you"'s I don't routinely shut down anything. The administrators do. Take it up with them and ask them if there is a policy for it. Don't forget, policy and practice aren't the same thing. Clear?
Niteshift36 (
talk) 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- My appologies for the "you". I did not think you persoanlly end discussions of banned users. I realize that it is admin, and they are free to comment if they like. But, you did comment and they did not. They can clarify your statements if they wish, since you are speaking about what is routinely done here by admins. Secondly, I know you did not say "policy", however, you used the word "procedurally" in your reply. To me, "procedurally" indicates something a bit more formal than something admins routinely decide to do, which implies to me a case by case basis. Yes, I understand that there is a difference between policy and practice, however, following policy has been central to these debates...particularly when regarding the deletion of the article. Procedure has been dictated by policy to the letter with no wiggle room with respect to the "spirit" of the policy. However, it is noted that you do not make these decisions and I formally ask an admin, any admin, what is the policy regarding this topic.
Americansambo (
talk) 05:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- So can you provide me with a link to the policy so I can see it for myself. I've tried looking and cant find that stated. Thanks.
Onesti (
talk) 21:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Jeez, you are a broken record. Did I ever say anywhere that it was a policy? Did I? No, I didn't. So why are you repeatedly asking for a link to a policy that I never said existed. It is a common PRACTICE (notice that word isn't policy, even though it begins with the same letter.) in AfD's to administratively close nominations made by banned users. I don't close them, the admins do. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. I simply suggested that practice (again, not policy, practice) would apply here too. Got it?
Niteshift36 (
talk) 23:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Maybe because you didn't bother to answer the first 2 times I asked. I'm just trying to learn my way around here. Theres no need to get huffy, and if thats the way you deal with everyone who asks a questions, you need to examine how you deal with people. Lets look at what you said originally though - "Nominations for deletion are procedurally closed when the nominator is banned" procedurally implies it follows a procedure. I.e. there is a procedure/policy in place for this, not just that its whats done as everyone knows thats how it works. Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that the procedures where what governed wikipedia, not what people decided to do themselves.
Onesti (
talk) 07:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Reading the deletion policy and process, I see no basis for Niteshift36's comment. I would really like it if someone could point me to the correct place where this is stated. Thanks.
Onesti (
talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Why C Q Faunce was banned? I see no evidence in this discussion as to why C Q Faunce was deleted. His participation here has seemed above board in defending his points?
Americansambo (
talk) 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Ban discussion and reason can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=365444942#User:Cy_Q._Faunce - I personally think that editors who claim specific academic or military credentials for example should be able to be verified, but there you go...
Onesti (
talk) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You're not going to get very far suggesting that that ban is unwarranted because he was somehow doing Wikipedia a public service by tracking down the DOB and SSN of a good faith Wikipedia editor and then contacting his alma mater to request information about him. I'm sorry, but it's barely exaggeration for me to typify that behavior as completely insane. That is among the most egregious examples of cyberstalking/harassment I have ever seen on here. Not to mention that whether or not the offended editor at issue is a JMU grad is utterly beside the point. It is completely irrelevant. His expertise, or lack thereof, or whatever, has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of his AfD arguments.
Back to the topic at hand: obviously, I endorse the decision to delete, but insofar as I voted delete in the conversation I do not consider my opinion to be of any particular merit here.
ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ
bomb 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- And Im not suggesting that. Please dont put words in my mouth. What I am saying as a general point is that if an editor lists for example a doctorate that infers in the mind of the people reading their work a certain level of authority. It is my belief that there should be some way to verify whether this is true or not. Now that in my mind should probably be an internal mechanism to wikipedia and not the way C Q Faunce took it! Anyway, this is besides the point to the discssion here.
Onesti (
talk) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- It might be beside the point, yet you brought it up anyway. Funny how that works. His ban was totally justified.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- What are you trying to imply? I never said the ban was not justified. I stated a personal view that is all.
Onesti (
talk) 21:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- (EC) Ah, okay. Sorry if I put words in your mouth. I misread your lack of a ringing endorsement of the ban decision to mean opposition to it, which is clearly not the case. That's my bad. The stalking situation unnerved me when I read about it, given my own participation in the AfD, so I think it's a touchy issue with me right now :). Anyway. Moving on!
ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ
bomb 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- "tracking down the DOB and SSN of a good faith Wikipedia editor and then contacting his alma mater to request information about him. I'm sorry, but it's barely exaggeration for me to typify that behavior as completely insane." You have your way of fact checking, and we have ours. Remember that verification of credentials is what Bullshido.net is famou... umm I mean trivially notable for. Insane? Get real. He's making a claim to certain credentials. In public. Attempting to verify those claims is the *opposite* of insanity. Don't make me cite references to this website's staff harboring known frauds. --
Mthai66 (
talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- This isn't the place to discuss the merits (or otherwise) of bans. The proper place for that is
WP:ANI.
Hut 8.5 20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- This suggests that the volume of the discussion may have exceeded his ability to grasp it. There was absolutely no call to get personal, in response to a reasoned and well-considered closure of an extremely complex AfD. Endorse of course. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
stannary parliament─╢ 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn If you can't delete something in three tries, a fourth is just silly. At some point, an admin should weigh the past "no consensus" as a global consensus, regardless of whatever local comments pop up in yet-another-AfD. The problem with the system is that deletions are more binding (G4) than keep or no consensus closures.
Jclemens (
talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn an erroneous close, based on the wrong principle. it is correct that, as the closer said, " The fundamental issue is does Bullshido have enough reliable, independent sources to meet the notability and verifiability standards " But the people to judge that is the community, not the closer. The closer has the responsibility to decide if the relevant policy issue is being addressed, rather than such arguments as "I know its important". But anyone in the community who discusses the policy issue has equal authority and responsibility for interpreting the specific issue in terms of WP policy, and the closer is not to second-guess them, or cast a super-vote,or ignore or downrate the opinions of those he does not agree with. What he should do if he has a view on the matter that he would like taken into account, but is not clearly the consensus is to join the argument, and let someone else close. He has no right whatsoever to examine the individual sources on his own account, make a judgement on them, and use that judgement to decide as an administrator. In judging whether or not a particular source is adequate, he's no better than any other editor.
DGG (
talk ) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Very well thought out close. None of the reasons given above to overturn are convincing, since there is a consensus with respect to our guidelines that this should be deleted. Most of the "keep" rationals were exceedingly weak and not based within our policy. There is also no problem with the admin reviewing the quality of the sources presented during the AfD.
Them
From
Space 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- So, it is a weak argument to suggest that editors and/or advocates for deletion argued for deletion citing the poor nature of sources which they had not read in full? The RF article, to my knowledge has still not been read in its entirety by any editors or proponents of deletion here. Please correct me if I am wrong. Secondly, the value of the Slovakian TV show was judged when no editor/deletion advocate had even read an English transcript? These issues show, IMO, the inability of the editors to properly asses the sources and research the references in question.
Americansambo (
talk) 05:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Would you care to list your objections to the TV spot on Bullshido.net? We're listening. --
Mthai66 (
talk) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- One of the great problems here is that the "we" you are referring to isn't simply the group of people who oppose the deletion, rather it is the elements of the Bullshido.net community that have emerged here. That makes these discussions very difficult and in some senses pointless because some are not interested in anything which might actually mean "their" article is deleted. For example, we have Americansambo and others effectively admitting the article doesn't meet our widely accepted guidelines and policies by suggesting there should have been some "wiggle room" in keeping with the spirit of the policies rather keeping to the letter. However, when the notability guidelines are clear that notability on Wikipedia doesn't mean fame, all the arguments about how important Bullshido.net is and how many Google hits they are suddenly become completely irrelevant. Keeping in the spirit of our guidelines/policies doesn't mean ignoring them when convenient. None of the sources here are particularly good and then when you add in the degree to which the Bullshido.net is prepared to involve themselves with these matters, it makes me wonder whether we can have confidence that the article can ever be properly written from a
neutral point of view as is required.
Adambro (
talk) 07:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I think you're bundling together of opposing contributors here is a bit disingenuous. Sure some people are from Bullshido, but some are not. You make it sound like people only have one aim in life but really motivations are more complex than that. My reading of what Americansambo said is that he did not accept what you have ascribed to him, but that the article could be better. None of the sources may be particularly good in your view, but as I see it the peer reviewed published graduate work is. The TV show is. Thats 2 at least. How many do you need before it tips the balance?
Onesti (
talk) 07:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Adambro, don't flatter yourself. We aren't fighting this tooth and nail because we believe you are capable of changing your collective mind, we are fighting this because we all refelxively recoil at bullshit, and attack it where ever we find it. On principle. At this point we are simply interested in seeing how far you will go your mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that you were wrong, and how many times you will move the goal posts. It is worth remembering that there is only one source so famously unreliable that every school child learns it is unacceptable, and it is not Bullshido.net --
Mthai66 (
talk) 08:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- In response to Onesti, I am well aware that not all those who oppose the deletion are connected to Bullshido.net in some way. I suspect many of those though would be able to recognise that some of those opposing the deletion aren't necessarily doing so because they want to improve Wikipedia but rather due to some connection the subject in question. Mthai66's most recent comments above seem to reinforce my view that some don't have improving Wikipedia as their priority. Instead Mthai66 is interested "in seeing how far you will go your mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that you were wrong, and how many times you will move the goal posts". That Mthai66 also says "we all refelxively recoil at bullshit" seems to confirm that when he talks about "we" he means the Bullshido.net community. If Mthai66 is referring to Wikipedia in the latter part of his comment, he will therefore be able to appreciate why
Wikipedia:Verifiability "is one of Wikipedia's core content policies" and hence why there is such a concern about the sources available for Bullshido.net.
Adambro (
talk) 09:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment What are you going to do about all of
this? --
Mthai66 (
talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- In most cases the links should probably be removed. Like most forums, the Bullshido.net forum probably can't be considered to be a reliable source and the same goes for the Bullshido.net wiki. The existence of an article about Bullshido.net or not as the case may be, does not directly relate to whether the site can be considered to be a reliable source. As an example of the problems, one of the articles cites the Bullshido.net wiki and when you go to the page there it says the content was copied from Wikipedia. That isn't an appropriate source.
Adambro (
talk) 07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse- Well within administrator discretion, and the closing rationale leaves me in no doubt that this was a well thought-out close.
Reyk
YO! 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn I do not believe this source -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QNTcueerQ - was given a credible review before the article was deleted. The deletion did not even look at an English translation of the programme before the article was deleted. More over the video was ignored and dismissed as not being notable. People made the assumption from poor research that this was some form of shock style, Riplys believe it or Not style programme. This is not the case.
This quote is from reporter in the program: "the programme is called Crepiny which means broken or scrap glass. It is now hybernated, officially, which means it could be revived but it doesn't seem real in the near future. It was the only serious news magazine of our TV, where we had the time and space to work on serious topics, often following them all over the country for days or even weeks and making a 7, 10 or even more minutes long report... Topics were of a broad range, including personal stories of people in peril (like a guy I befriended during shooting, who got attacked by 2 guys he called upon to stop harrassing a girl and he ended up on a wheelchair), reflections on historic events (voting for a new pope, remembering the 1968 invasion o the Warsaw pact into Czechoslovakia). Basically anything, that is interesting and has peoples story behind them, that allows to go in deeper. Definitely not a tabloid, like most of our programmes right now..." This clearly shows that within the country the programme comes from this is a notable source. Further the transcript, available here:
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1562876&postcount=79 - shows that it deals with Bullshido.net and is verifiable. I would also like someone to explain to me why the disertation written and published by Stanford here
http://journalism.stanford.edu/studentworks/2009/treanor-mobjustice.pdf does not meet verfiable/notable guidelines? To me it does both.
Onesti (
talk) 09:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I would note that deletion review is about reviewing how the AfD was closed, not AfD round 2. It is for the closing admin to weigh up what has been said and judge, with reference to our policies and guidelines rather than simply counting votes, what the outcome of the discussion should be. The AfD is the time to make assessments about sources. That the community wasn't generally convinced that appropriate sources were present doesn't mean the the way the AfD was closed was wrong and it should be overturned, rather it means that the arguments that such sources were present wasn't strong enough.
Adambro (
talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Ok, maybe I'm crossing over a bit here, my bad. I would like to say though against the summation of the AfD and the way it was closed that these presented sources were not even reviewed in the closing statement even though they were presented beforehand. I believe that the closing statement did not take them into account, and we need to send this back to review the sources fully. Hope that makes more sense.
Onesti (
talk) 09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The closer already addresses this argument on his talk page. The AfD was exceptionally long at 30,000 words, if the closing statement had mentioned every argument put forward in the AfD it would have been enormous.
Hut 8.5 10:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I dont think he did though. What he said was that the AfD was long and he didn't want to comment on every source. If thats the case, why did he address some sources, specifically those raised in the opener for the AfD and not those bought up in the process. Secondly he dismisses C Q Faunces and Mthai66 because, in his words "Both of [them] tried to wear down the other side by sheer length of discussion- argument by exhaustion, if you will." I do not see this as the case but as these two contributors trying to get further sources recognised and review correctly. They did not succeed, moreover they seem to have been ignored. Further, again in Bradjamesbrown's words "The consensus among editors... ...was pretty clear that the sources do not exist to justify the Bullshido article." Again I would disagree as the concensus seems to be built on the sources first provided, not the newer ones. I am personally just trying to get an article on Wikipedia about bullshido.net that is accepted. If the requirement is for this one to go away and a contributor to build a new one, fair enough, but I want to understand why these new sources were not concidered to meet the requirements.
Onesti (
talk) 10:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion as per closer's detailed rationale. As has been pointed out numerous times before, AFD is a discussion, not a vote. Most of the "keep" proposals were by SPAs with weak arguments. Incidentally, one of the Bullshido members has
claimed in this very DRV that Bullshido.net is devoted to outing and harassing Wikipedia editors. If this is true, we should consider banning everyone associated with the site.
*** Crotalus *** 16:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Mthai66 and Cy Q have already been indefinitely blocked for their behavior, and good riddance to both in my personal opinion. That said, I don't see anything to suggest that this pattern extends past the two of them. There are other Bullshido folks in this DRV who, while I disagree with them, have behaved admirably, and ought not to be punished because of the actions of Mthai and Cy Q. Although given what's gone on thus far I'll personally be very quick to change my mind if more of what those two charmingly referred to as "fact-checking" occurs.
ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ
bomb 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure. It seems a lot is riding here on the Slovak TV programme. I do find something bizarre about the fact that notability of an English wikipedia article on a website would depend on the details of its discussion on a Slovak TV show in 2007, but whatever. I understand Slovak enough to follow the youtube video and listened to the first 3 minutes or so. The programme does indeed deal in detail with the issues surrounding bullshido.net and does at times deal specifically with bullshido.net itself. It appears to match the transcript provided. However, I have significant doubts as to whether this consitutes an independent source. The woman announcer at the beginning (prior to what is in the transcript) starts of by saying "Everyone has their hobbies" and then refers to this spot being about the hobby of "our colleague, Daniel". I assume but am not sure that it is then Daniel whose voice we hear, and whoever it is says that it all started (the discussion is about an event where he invited some fighters to Slovakia) when he received all sorts of commentary at a website (bullshido scrolls across the screen) that "his friends and family are very familiar with". It is not stated explicitly that he (the speaker) would be affiliated with the website, but I have the suspicion that this is indeed an informative, 8 minute TV spot about bullshido which has been created by someone affiliated both with bullshido and the TV station, and therefore does not count as an independent source. I am happy to change my mind if someone credibly assures that this is not the case. The fact that on the English transcript mentioned above, the bottom tagline is "I got BULLSHIDO ON TV!!!" does not inspire confidence.
Martinp (
talk) 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- ...and the tagline and transcript come from a Bullshido member with over 3,000 posts who lists his location as Slovakia and his occupation as Journalist.
ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ
bomb 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I think you're right this isn't an independent source. Some more posts from the person who posted the translation discussing the report:
-
[3]: "My boss allowed me to do it, because I told him I might get my ass kicked badly"
-
[4]: "the report on Bullshido went on air yesterday night. I'm not perfectly satisfied with my product, had little time to really play with it, but still... My boss wasn't satisfied either, because he'd prefer to have me beaten to pulp, for camera's sake..."
-
[5]: "Dammit, it's MY report."
Hut 8.5 22:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Very interesting, I would thank the above users for this useful research. This TV report has been repeatedly mentioned by some of our Bullshido.net friends here as unequivocally establishing notability inline with our guidelines yet all along some of them must have been aware that there would be significant concerns about its independence if details of how it came about emerged. Here we have yet more evidence that this subject fails to meet the notability guidelines and perhaps another indication that some of our Bullshido.net friends haven't been completely straight with the Wikipedia community here. It is ironic that is has been suggested that the closing admin or the discussion in general didn't properly assess the sources whilst probably the same people weren't being completely open about what they knew about one of those sources.
Adambro (
talk) 09:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I am a bullshido member, and I have written for the site. I believe everyone here knows that. I can say though, that my participation at bullshido is restricted to specific MABS investigations and stuff which intrests me. Like here on WP, my edit history mainly pertains to sambo. I can say I really was not aware of the depth of connection to bullshido the tv reporter had. However, I simply would like to note that since bullshido is where pretty much everyone interested in martial arts fraud will be, it may be difficult to find stories, sources, etc, which never connect back to bullshido in some fashion. I also want to note that regardless of the reporter's personal connection to bullshido, I am sure as with all TV shows, his piece needed to be reviewed and approved by a producer. So, in the end, there was non-bullshido connected oversight. Reporters just can't go around putting whatever they want on the air. And reporters also generally write about what they are interested in, do they not? If a producer think a piece is BS, they won't run the spot. So, I would argue that the piece was still independently reviewed by someone not connected to bullshido.
Americansambo (
talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Let me ask you this: Regardless of your assumptions about if a producer did this or that, wouldn't it have been far better for that connection to be disclosed by those who were using it as "proof" of notability, particularly when they kept bringing it up over and over?
Niteshift36 (
talk) 21:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I can't disagree that it would have been better to disclose that info. Likewise, it would have been better for the admins here to actually read the RF article and proprely research the TV translation before judging them as possible sources. However, I don't think my "assumption" regarding independent review of the TV spot by producers is easily written off. In fact, I would be willing to bet it is very accurate to state that the TV spot was reviewed by a producer before airing. No reporter is allowed to air spots without such review. So, regardless of the reporter's connection to bullshido or personal intrest in martial arts fraud, I would argue it is still an independently verified TV spot, thus fulfilling the WP requirements. I don't see how anyone who looks beyond the bickering here could not make the same conclusion.
Americansambo (
talk) 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I call it your assumption because we don't really even know that the producer (if there was one) isn't a bullshido member himself. Also, simply allowing something to air isn't a true test. Any number of deals/concessions/trades could have been made to allow it to get put on the air, we're simply making assumptions that some producer thought it was news-worthy. Of course, on a slow day, my local TV station will fill time with a piece about a food fight at a high school cafeteria or a piece about professionals (such as realtors) who've turned to topless dancing to supplement their income in the current economy. I'm not sure what the Slovak answer to a slow news day is, but I could make guesses.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- So, you are moving goal posts even further back now. Maybe the producer is a bullshido member? Maybe the network owner is as well. Heck, maybe the president of Slovakia is too. And even if the producer was a bullshido member, do you think he would sacrifice his journalistic integrity to run a story that was not credible? So, your local news does a story on a food fight or realtors stripping because of hard econominc times (that is actually a sad story if true). Not big news granted, but, still news that was covered nonetheless. So, now you will judge the notability of a news story based on your estimation of whether the topic is worthy or not? Not that a legit news station covered the story? What if I could establish that the producer is not a member of bullshido? You would probably say there would be no way to prove it either way...in which case your whole argument is flawed and we would have to assume that a TV producer would act in accordance to the network's standards, and not his intrest in a website. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Americansambo (
talk •
contribs) 22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- You missed the point. I'm not saying the producer is a member. I'm saying that while you claim your assumptions aren't really assumptions, it's easy to point out that they truly are nothing but guesses on your part. If I ask a simple question like "Is that producer a member", you can't answer it because you're flying blind. And yes, there is a judgement part of the whole sourcing argument. Is the local piece about the food fight trivial or significant? That's debateable and the debate is perfectly valid. BTW, don't get too sad about the realtor turned stripper story....they only found one. The rest of the so-called professionals were blackjack dealers etc. Locally, we have a glut of realtors who got a license to try to jump on the market and found out it wasn't limitless. Now they go back to what they did before.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 22:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- (ec) " I don't see how anyone...could not make the same conclusion." That is pretty much the gist of the problem here. Everybody who is a passionate, inherently biased participant in Bullshido is very clearly totally unable to see how anyone "could not make the same conclusion"[s] that they make. This has marked almost every contribution by every Bullshido member throughout this debate -- a total inability to even consider that their conclusions, which are being disputed by a very large number of experienced Wikipedians who are by and large totally unfamiliar with and as such unbiased regarding Bullshido, might be incorrect. The latest being that the revelation that this obscure TV source upon which so much debate rested was actually created by a Bullshido member/Slovakian journalist and hence is in completely, inarguably blatant violation of any number of guidelines and policies here concerning reliable sourcing, is irrelevant. If you cannot see how so many of us cannot reach the same conclusion, the proper question is not to wonder why we can't reach the same conclusion, it is to wonder why you are reaching it. As an aside, whether the producer was a Bullshido member or not is completely irrelevant.
ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ
bomb 22:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure the closing rationale was measured and well within reasonable discretion. The two most recent AfDs (both September 2009) were no consensus closes (#2 was "very close" to deletion & #3 was an immediate re-nom that quickly became intractable), indicating that this was an article in the gray areas of notability to say the least. I see nothing amiss in the process of that AfD that should overturn the result. If anything, there's ample evidence of off-wiki canvassing from Bullshido.net-related fora, which explains the rash of SPAs that arrived to argue to keep the article. Since this is clearly a borderline
WP:N case, I think any administrator should be free to restore the article at his/her discretion should any further reliable sources become available that deal with the subject directly. —
Scien
tizzle 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Reaffirm my endorsement above. I've now looked at more broadly. The argument of the person bringing this to DRV seemed to hinge on i) four reliable references demonstrating notability were not considered, and ii) one keep argument in particular (Carol Kaur) was not considered/commented on. As far as ii), in a lengthy AFD, the closer is not obligated to comment on each argument. Carol Kaur's argument, while understandable, is not policy based and can be discounted. As to the four sources, as I wrote above, one (Slovak TV) is not independent, though it is extensive. The Kung Fu magazine article is a mention in passing and the author of it says he is a "staff member at bullshido.com". The Sean Treanor article is a student endproduct, that may well be good and may well have been overseen by faculty, but would carry a lot more weight if were published in a journal or magazine somewhere rather than an assignment (even if extensive one) posted on a university website. Finally, there is the Real Fighter article, which I have not read, but which the meta-discussion above indicates seems to be an article on a specific situation, mentioning bullshido only in passing (though it may well extensively discuss the situation at hand using information/insight bullshido was instrumental in developing).
All in all, first I see no evidence of a faulty close. Second, since this has become "AFD round 5" for better or worse, none of the putative additional information would indicate that there is extensive, independent discussion of bullshido itself (not merely of specific situations where bullshido has played a role) in reliable sources of the sort that could be used to write a good wikipedia article about it. Finally, pragmatically speaking, many (not all!) of the proponents of this article on wikipedia seems to be very passionate, but used to engaging in discussion in a way which is more confrontational than we are used to here. Together with what is clearly a concerted effort by members of the bullshido forum to enhance their public visibility, whether on TV or on wikipedia, this does not inspire confidence that an impartial article could be written and maintaned. So, in summary, no evidence of a faulty close, and no reason to believe the decision would have been wrong even if the close not faulty.
Martinp (
talk) 21:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse There are low popularity articles with entire books written on them being deleted and people are getting passionate about a website? Cmon. This isnt AfD part 2 and it was thoroughly discussed. Drowning people in text repeating the same argument is the not same as actually coming up with better sources.--
Savonneux (
talk) 00:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Exactly. This is not AFD round two, as this process mirrors that of an appeals court. It focuses on process, and whether the proper decision was reached based on the discussion in the AFD. We're not concerned about sources so much here as whether the process was executed directly. It's not a place to complain when one simply does not like the result, but rather, it's a place to go if it is believes there was a breakdown in the process.
SchuminWeb (
Talk) 14:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, and can we salt it this time?. We're not an advertising site for trivia.
Black Kite (t)
(c) 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I've got
Bullshido.net,
Bullshido, and
McDojo watchlisted, and so far, no one has recreated them. If it does become a problem, we can speedy and salt.
SchuminWeb (
Talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and merge. New sources were added relatively late in the AFD, and most of the "Delete" !votes happened before that point. By then, the article may have satisifed the GNG guidelines. While I'm also on the fence about notability, the proper outcome would be to trim and merge, not to delete sourced content, especially if this has gone to the fourth AFD. This article, along with McDojo, could have been merged into Bullshido, and ultimately worked into something like "Controversy in martial arts instruction".
Squidfryerchef (
talk) 15:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Merging was only mentioned once during the AfD, by the nominator (who thought it was a bad idea). An AfD can't be closed as endorsing a merge if merging wasn't even discussed during the AfD.
Hut 8.5 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I believe it came up in previous AFDs. While perhaps it wasn't possible to resolve AFD #4 as a merge, it may be an appropriate resolution to this DRV.
Squidfryerchef (
talk) 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
- That would require overturning two other AFDs with similar problems to the Bullshido.net article where there was a clear consensus to delete. No.
SchuminWeb (
Talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
|