Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 12:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bullshido

This page was previously listed on VfD. The prior consensus reached was Redirect without Merge to McDojo. The old discussion has been moved here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bullshido/Archive1. Since the original discussion, the article has been significantly rewritten and now bears little if any resemblance to the version existing when previously listed. (For convenience, here is User:Taxman's edit previously nominating the page: [1]) However, User:Fire Star has made the point that any admin would be within their rights to execute the previous consensus decision. Therefore, I am renominating this article for reconsideration by the community. My personal vote is Keep --MikeJ9919 20:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• redirect again. The article is still an advertisement, and it still just reiterates material found elsewhere. --InShaneee 21:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to McDojo. Megan1967 06:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Could this be NPOV'd, or otherwsie re-edited, in which case it may warrant a keep as a "more than a definition" --Simon Cursitor 06:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with McDojo - and MikeJ, please note that merging or unmerging an article does not require any kind of vote, as long as it's done in good faith. Radiant_* 17:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand that, Radiant. However, I think a merge of the article after the previous consensus was to redirect without merge would be inappropriate and actually blatantly bad faith. --MikeJ9919 19:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• As I mentioned before, this is a notable group in Western martial arts circles. That being said, this could certainly be a paragraph or two at McDojo, or vice versa. Abstain for now. Fire Star 03:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Change my vote to keep. I have some ideas on how to expand different viewpoints in the article to promote NPOV. The article as it stands is the result of a collaborative effort between Phrost, myself and a few others, and is less POV than many of the other martial arts articles. BTW, "bullshido" gets over 6,000 Google hits, FWIW. Fire Star 01:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge -- I don't see how any other action would apply. — Xiong熊talk* 13:10, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• So far I've seen no solid justification for merging it with McDojo, especially considering they're completely different terms. Bullshido is a term that encompasses McDojos, fraud, questionable practices, poor standards, and other garbage in the martial arts. It sounds like sour grapes to me, go go passive-aggressive wikipedia editors! Keep --Phrost 18:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've heard the term at many different martial arts clubs and it is prevalent throughout related internet groups Jekyll 18:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Bullshido is a valid and established (in certain circles) term that is separate in definition from 'McDojo', thus a redirect, with or without merge, would not be appropriate here. I think the mere fact that there's so much discussion around this article is an indication that the article is, in fact, relevant and interesting. Thus, removing it would be a disservice to the community. If some of you are not happy with the content of the article, then a dicussion of how these complaint can be addressed is the way to proceed, not this. --thefurman
• Keep -- Bullshido is a website with 5,000+ members. The word "Bullshido" is used by many martial artists as a descriptive term for ineffective or fraudulent martial arts training and instructors ("That's Bullshido!", "He's a Bullshido artist." etc.) . It's becoming part of the martial arts vocabulary and is used even by people who don't frequent the primary website. This entry should stay. --Katanahamon 19:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - These are terms with different meanings, it would definitely be beneficial for the online community to be able to view the seperate meanings for these two different words. - --Jso234 01:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - An instructor can teach bullshido. He can't teach McDojo. You can train at a McDojo. You can't train at a bullshido. The only thing these terms have in common is that they both describe serious (but separate) problems in the martial arts community. (Added by User:Bunyip but left unsigned --MikeJ9919 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - The term has even slipped into the vocabular on other message boards.McDojo and Bullshido are separate terms.

• Keep - The two terms are different and have fallen into common use outside of the internet - they need seperate definitions for the simple reason that they do not mean the same thing. (Added by User:Jcache but left unsigned --MikeJ9919 16:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - Seperate meanings different definitions Mcdojo one on every corner. Not necessarily good or bad. Bullshido is fake and fraudulent. (Added by User:Mw234 but left unsigned --MikeJ9919 16:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - "McDojo" is a recognized term among people who haven't even heard of the Bullshido website. The two words are often used simultaneously but do not have significantly overlapping definitions. --Shuma-Gorath (Actually added by anon IP 24.42.13.51...User:Shuma-Gorath has no edits --MikeJ9919 16:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - The usage and meaning of "McDojo" does not pertain to the phrase "Bullshido" in manner or form. While a particular school and/or style *MAY* be both, more frequently than not, the terms are used for distinctly separate instances. (Added by anon IP 68.220.129.74 --MikeJ9919 16:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - Bullshido <> McDojo. Bullshido is applied to anything that is purported to be effective when it can be refuted in demonstration. No-touch knockouts are a example of this. A McDojo is a place wherein Bullshido could be but is not necessarily taught. A McDojo is usually shown to have it's front window lined with trophies and to churn out black belts like a burger chain churns out combo meals.

• Keep - Bullshido <> McDojo. Seperate terms. A McDojo can host legit fighting arts OR bullshido.

• Keep - Bullshido=Ashida Kim, Frank Dux, and the multitude of no-touch knock-out fakers. Mcdojo=Martial arts schools that are simplily trying to make a living, some could be Bullshido but not all. --Skeptical Warrior

• Keep - Bullshido is a valid term and has grown much bigger than its humble, internet message board, beginnings. --Ktulu

• Keep -Bullshido has become common parlance in the Martial Arts world- ----Garbanzo

• Redirect without Merge In light of the ridiculous sock-puppetry on this deletion vote, I am changing my vote to redirect without merge. I prefer delete over keep. I thought this article had some value, but the admin closing this vote should note that every person voting between Phrost and myself has fewer than 5 edits. Most have only one or two. User:Shuma-Gorath appears to have none. All of the unsigned votes that I could see (I didn't actually go through each one, I don't have that kind of time) were by anon IPs, and under policy should be automatically discounted. --MikeJ9919 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and one more comment...while I have heard McDojo before, in my 10+ years studying the martial arts, this is the first time I've ever heard this term. --MikeJ9919 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • So, you're changing your vote not based on your opinion, but simply because your feelings were hurt over new members voting? Do you realize that this goes against EVERYTHING that the wikipedia is supposed to be? Sad sad sad. --thefurman 15:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I'm changing it because they appear to be accounts created specifically to subvert the VfD process. When I say "one or two edits", I don't mean they appear to have edited articles and then stumbled on this one singular vote for deletion...their only edits are on this page and this page alone. That smacks of blatant sock-puppetry, and using sock puppets to subvert VfD is against policy.--MikeJ9919 15:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Sure, but what does that have to do with the worth of the arcticle? That's what all of this is about, remember? This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a venue to play out political confrontations. If you think the article has merrit and should stay, than that is how you should vote if you want to remain true to the mission of this project. Otherwise, you're acting out on emotion or some silly sense of revenge. Now, onto "sock puppets". Am I a sock puppet? I've never participated in the wikipedia process up until this point. In fact, I only made my account to vote here, since this is the first time I am faced with something I feel strongly enough about to bother. Should my vote not count? Are some members more equal than others? Why do you feel the need to insult me and others like me? It seems that you really need to sit down, forget about your emotions, and think through your position. As it is right now, it's in conflict with itself. You can't claim the moral high road and accuse others of subverting the wikipedia process while voting to delete an article that you yourself consider worthwhile over a petty grudge. Sorry. --Thefurman 15:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
          • If you want my reasoning behind my vote, it is actually a logical extension of my sock-puppet argument. I've found that sock puppets tend to show up when there is an attempt to subvert NPOV. The NPOV problem with this article has been mentioned by previous voters, specifically Simon Cursitor. I was not persuaded at the time - I didn't believe that the article was POV. I have rethought that position and am now under the impression that (1) it is and (2) there is not sufficient content to modify that. Therefore, with regards to my vote, it stands. With regards to "some members more equal"...sockpuppets are all different faces of one member, and while that member is equal, his/her attempt to vote twice (or three times, or four times...) by using sockpuppets is actually an attempt to be "more than equal." If you aren't a sockpuppet, then I'm sorry...this is nothing personal. Nevertheless, even you must admit that it is very suspicious.--MikeJ9919 16:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm going to bow out of this discussion as I see no point in it continuing. You're not litening to me. That is ok. You don't have to. Hopefully, you will soon cool down and rethink all of this with a clearer head. --Thefurman 16:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not a sock puppet. I was an anonymous user but felt compelled to register to defend this article. The concept of "Bullshido" is different from "McDojo". A TKD Franchise where you have eight year old Black Belts running around is a McDojo. They may teach legitimate fighting techniques that could actually work if applied and trained correctly, but elect instead to sell belts and ranks to make people happy. Bullshido are those techniques that are pure garbage. One touch knockouts, Chi power, slow moving defense against attackers, no-contact sparring, etc. The words are different. I've been studing martial arts for over 20 years now and hadn't heard the term being used either until a year or so ago. However that's strictly a function of how long the term has actually been around. This article should stay. -- Katanahamon 17:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not a sockpuppet either. How about caring more about the integrity of the definitions and less about some misguided ferver to discredit actual live people who care to express their opinion. Even if you had a million edits your opinion would not be more valid than ours. Elitism has no place in this type of forum. Like many facets of the internet, this particular idea (Wikipedia) was created in part to escape/circumvent the very thing you are doing here. OH, and by the way, I tried to email you but you aren't accepting emails through your Wikipedia login. That's your right, but it is kind-of cheesy to be able to argue then retreat behind annonymity. --Chronomorte 21:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm an active user, and I read and respond to anything posted on my Talk page. Feel free to leave messages there.--MikeJ9919 22:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Bullshido has a different meaning, it does not translate into McDojo. Bullshido as a term relates to unrealistic expectations in the martial arts, McDojo relates to questionable business practices in martial arts schools which may or may not include bullshido. Different things. - --WingChun Lawyer 16:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - McDojo and Bullshido are two different words having two different meanings, in my opinion there is a need for two seperate entries. --ojgsxr6

• Keep Hi there... even though it appears I am to be labelled a "sock puppet" I would like to vote keep... I have browsed Wikipedia a few times and never registered pretty much because I dont have much to add to many items here... The reason for keeping Bullshido is because its a valid term in its own right, it is different in meaning from Mcdojo so shouldnt be merged with it. There are many obscure terms out there that I havent heard of but I dont think they should be deleted... so why should this...??--Shadowdh 16:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - It doesn't make sense to delete a word that has a unique meaning and is established. Bullshido definately deserved its own posting, as does McDojo, it's a shame this is even in question.- --Chronomorte 17:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain, but holy sockpuppet overload, batman! Tomer ^TALK 19:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't see how we need this. (Not to mention the abundance of Sock puppets) - Tεxτurε 20:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note - Sockpuppetry is futile. The admin who makes the final tally will, by long-established precedent, give proportionately less weight to votes from any accounts with few edits, and practically none to those with one or two, especially if they are all on this VfD. If anyone of the seeming multitude of concerned newbies has actually been an anonymous user for a while and wants to get previous edits assigned to their new account, this is the time to do so if they want their vote to "weigh" more. Fire Star 22:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Darn it, apparently the attribution change service has been suspended. Still, people can list their previous edits on their new user pages, if they'd like, with perhaps an appended note to that effect on their votes here. Fire Star 01:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • This is hilarious. An outpouring of support for the article gets dismissed simply because the individuals involved aren't going around cramming their views down other people's throats. The opinions of people who have been recently introduced to Wikipedia aren't as important as those who spend copious amounts of their free time interjecting themselves into subjects on which they have absolutely no expertise. I especially love how some of the votes for deletion, which are BLATANTLY biased, are being presented by people who have absolutely no connection to the martial arts and no perspective on the relevance of Bullshido within this community. It would be as asinine as me editing the NASCAR article, or voting on deletion of a related subject. This is precicely why people have legitimate gripes with how Wiki operates. It doesn't take any expertise, just an overinflated sense of self-importance, a healthy dose of passive aggression, and a dash of hubris. --Phrost 02:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, even without the votes from the new accounts, it looks like the article is likely to survive.Fire Star 04:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• There is blatent misuse of the word sock puppet here. Sock puppetry is multiple accounts made by the same person, not an influx of newbies prepared to vote on something they consider important. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet . The majority of new posters can be found over on Bullshido under the same name as they log on with here. This agressive attitude is not encouraging them to stick round and contribute.Jekyll 11:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.