283:. The concept of Bullshido was popularized by the website, but enjoys common usage among other communities and practitioners of martial arts. The article is in response to that already popular concept. The claim by Phr that "Bullshido.net is sufficiently mentioned in the Bullshido article" is not true, as I see it. The website appears only twice in that article: A casual reference on where the term came from in "Origin of the Term/Concept", and an external link.
417:. Despite the fact that the general phenomenon of a popular site linking to and overloading another website is called "traffic overload", Knowledge (XXG) maintains an article page on the specific phenomenon of Slashdot overloading pages - "Slashdot Effect." I believe that this is similar to what Bullshido and Bullshido.net exemplifies: A notable website, and a concept that may have been popularized by the website, but is notable enough to stand on its own. --
616:, 24th January 2004, ‘It's Greek to him ; Bradenton martial artist wrestles with ancient history of modern combat’. The specific quote is "At the bullshido.com Web site, 'dedicated to exposing fraud and b.s. in the martial arts,' anonymous contributors rage back and forth. It's no-holds-barred debate."
538:
be updated to mention it? Right now, it's not mentioned there; I'm far from convinced that it should be, but am at least slightly open to the idea. Per
Rgtraynor above, there are a fair number (about 60k) of Google hits on "bullshido.net", which is probably more significant than the very low number
587:
into this article rather than the other way around. 60k ghits doesn't indicate notability all by itself, but it's a respectable number. Similarly, Google search for "martial arts" gets over 65 million hits of which bullshido.net is about #80, again not a slam-dunk for notability, but certainly not
551:
per ranks at bigboards, and DRV comments. The site also seems pretty lively, so this isn't your neighbour's 10-user forum. And I think the article is pretty good - though it may need some cleanup, but AfD isn't the place for cleanup anyway. (Full disclosure: I'm a member of the forum, though I don't
430:
There are also multiple articles related to Google and
Microsoft. When bullshido.net has as much traffic as those sites, then it, too, will probably have multiple articles. That is: after, not before. The notion that bullshido.net is presently comparable to Slashdot is simply a ridiculous conceit
356:
editors' motivation is to document a site that's definitely notable (314,000 Google inlinks vs. 78 (most of them internal) for bullshido.net, Alexa rank 304 vs. 66,275 for bullshido.net), while your motivation for pressing for bullshido.net's inclusion seems to be to increase the site's notoriety,
592:
purposes, since they're mostly limited to sites running particular types of software. I think Google rank (per above) is somewhat more informative. I'll put some more analysis of big-boards.com here or over at the WP:WEB talk page later. Here are a couple pages critical of bullshido.net:
121:
598:. While not flattering to the site, the existence of such reactions is evidence of notability. I'd like to ask that one or both of those links be inserted into the article in the NPOV spirit, but I'm probably not the best person to add them under the circumstances.
336:
It's only slightly a matter of how the article is structured. It's mainly a matter of why anyone wants the article there in the first place. Please spend 20 seconds privately asking yourself why it matters to you whether the article is there, then see item #1 of
357:
something
Slashdot does not need. Obviously, if Bullshido.net gets its traffic levels anywhere near Slashdot's, the question will become different and can be revisited at that time. Knowledge (XXG) features sites after they achieve notability, not before.
588:
too shabby. (It bothers me that two of the top 5 hits for bullshido.net are to
Knowledge (XXG)). I've been studying the big-boards rankings for various sites and currently am of the opinion that they should not be considered relevant in general for
267:-related content, whereas Bullshido is a more comprehensive website that not only has forums, but also generates content, particularly through investigations. This website and this article is written in the same format and is akin to the
240:
280:
Regarding the issue of the bullshido.net article being sufficiently different from the bullshido as a concept article, this is also similar to SA's separate articles on the website and its forums
235:, about the site rather than the concept, appears to be mostly an advertising or vanity article. The bullshido.net site has Alexa rank 66,275 and only a dozen or so inbound Google link hits (
379:
article is the more questionable one; the term comes from the
Website, so this one is the more general page. Bullshido.net is one of the most actively read web forums out there:
271:
article on
Knowledge (XXG). The claim to notability has been made above concerning the involvement of a Bullshido.net member (Samuel Browning) in investigating David Race Bannon.
182:
watch out for counting Ghits when you search on what looks like a specific site; Google only ever returns a single hit when it thinks you're searching for a URL. For instance,
145:- National Public Radio, and a number of other institutions before being arrested. That is an example of how a Bullshido investigation had a notable impact. Please also see the
488:
obviously, for what it's worth. Bullshido.net is the largest and most active general
Martial Arts community on the Internet according to both Big-Boards.com and Alexa.com. --
583:. The total number of hits is reasonable but the term "bullshido" appears closely connected with the web site. I'm ok with Mangojuice's suggestion of merging
552:
think I have made more than 10-20 posts there, mostly
Knowledge (XXG)-related, I think... I'm definitely more of a WP editor than Bullshido member =) --
505:, user is also a co-founder and site director of bullshido.net (disclosure of interest). Contrib history is mostly related to Bullshido articles.
17:
575:
Based on 60k Google hits that appear fairly well distributed for "bullshido.com" or "bullshido.net", but only 18k for "bullshido"
243:) and no other claims of notability (such as cites to print media) have been made. The person pressing hardest for non-deletion (
452:
399:
190:
183:
319:
articles are structured to not be "vanity" or "advertising." so that the
Bullshido.net article can be rewritten to comply. --
263:
On big-boards.com, Bullshido.net is second only to sherdog.net as a top martial arts site, sherdog being the top website for
341:
and see if it applies. It also points towards vanity if the main authors of the article are associated with the site (see
307:
If there are claims that this is a "vanity" or "advertising" article, then I respectfully request that it be explained how
563:
594:
635:
36:
107:
can you source that claim? I see exactly 1 Google hit. That doesn't really seem to indicate
Bullshido.net meets the
634:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
111:
criteria, but if you have sources that it does I'd be inclined to consider them before rendering an opinion.--
141:
article for how a member of Bullshido contributed evidence against a criminal impersonator that had fooled
620:
602:
567:
543:
509:
492:
480:
459:
435:
421:
406:
361:
323:
294:
255:
206:
197:
174:
153:
127:
115:
99:
86:
57:
445:
475:
232:
63:
52:
526:
146:
559:
163:
138:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
342:
338:
248:
389:
82:
589:
535:
167:
159:
108:
617:
449:
396:
187:
158:
I'm heavily disinclined to consider evidence from other wikipedia articles as sources per
383:
350:
472:
418:
320:
268:
244:
203:
171:
150:
124:
112:
96:
49:
414:
Knowledge (XXG) has an article on both the website Slashdot and the "Slashdot Effect."
554:
380:
596:
502:
489:
312:
78:
308:
95:. This is a serious outfit that's received play in the martial arts press.
584:
441:
376:
287:
224:
281:
385:. Plus, it's not just a forum. I see no effort has been made to ask for
599:
540:
506:
432:
358:
353:
346:
316:
291:
252:
431:
and I wish you'd stop using it since it is probably hurting your cause.
228:
539:
of in-links. Whether that number reaches notability, I don't know.
471:
per RGTraynor. I'll see if I can dig up some sources for that. —
415:
345:
for a related concept). To pick just one of your other examples,
239:) that are not from bullshido.net itself or from Knowledge (XXG) (
534:
How seriously should this big-boards.com stuff be taken? Should
286:
As mentioned, I think it's reasonable to expand that part of the
628:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
612:
As to print media citations, I can point to one: Thomas Becnel,
166:
might be useful for finding press citations that would satisfy
264:
247:) is one of bullshido.net's site ops per his user page. See:
142:
231:) and the description there can be expanded if appropriate.
120:
How did you manage one G-hit? I get something like 59,000.
525:
say that, becasue I read the Deletion Review commentary. --
223:- bullshido.net (the web site) is already mentioned in the
444:
here, so it doesn't really matter. I'll bring this to
70:
579:"bullshido.com" or "bullshido.net", changed vote to
382:
and one of the top two martial-arts related forums:
395:on the article, so I think deletion is premature.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
440:Steve: of course, we're not debating deletion of
349:has been edited by 269 distinct registered users
638:). No further edits should be made to this page.
69:Completing the listing of this page here after
8:
149:article to see an example of notability. --
227:article (which may itself be merged with
290:article to say more about the web site.
202:Yep, that would be why I got one hit.--
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
73:requested undeletion and relisting.
24:
352:vs 3 for bullshido.net, and the
249:WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer
1:
170:. I'm still investigating.--
44:The result of the debate was
655:
603:19:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
568:09:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
544:08:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
510:08:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
493:06:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
481:18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
460:17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
436:17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
422:17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
407:17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
362:17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
324:17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
295:17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
256:16:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
207:17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
198:16:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
175:17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
154:16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
128:17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
116:16:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
100:16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
87:14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
631:Please do not modify it.
184:Yahoo! only gets one hit
32:Please do not modify it.
621:04:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
614:Sarasota Herald-Tribune
58:11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
412:Response to MangoJuice
162:, though searching on
251:for the phenomenon.
375:and clean up. The
137:Please consult the
135:Response to Isotope
164:David Race Bannon
139:David Race Bannon
55:
646:
633:
521:. But, then, I
478:
457:
404:
394:
388:
238:
195:
53:
34:
654:
653:
649:
648:
647:
645:
644:
643:
642:
636:deletion review
629:
476:
453:
400:
392:
386:
236:
191:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
652:
650:
641:
640:
624:
623:
606:
605:
570:
546:
529:
527:Simon Cursitor
515:
514:
513:
512:
496:
495:
483:
465:
464:
463:
462:
446:Talk:Bullshido
427:
426:
425:
424:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
329:
328:
327:
326:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
275:
274:
273:
272:
269:SomethingAwful
245:User:Scb steve
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
177:
132:
131:
130:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
651:
639:
637:
632:
626:
625:
622:
619:
615:
611:
608:
607:
604:
601:
597:
595:
591:
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:
550:
547:
545:
542:
537:
533:
530:
528:
524:
520:
517:
516:
511:
508:
504:
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
491:
487:
484:
482:
479:
474:
470:
467:
466:
461:
458:
456:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
434:
429:
428:
423:
420:
416:
413:
410:
409:
408:
405:
403:
398:
391:
384:
381:
378:
374:
371:
370:
363:
360:
355:
351:
348:
344:
340:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
303:
296:
293:
289:
285:
284:
282:
279:
278:
277:
276:
270:
266:
262:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
237:but see below
234:
233:Bullshido.net
230:
226:
222:
220:
216:
208:
205:
201:
200:
199:
196:
194:
189:
185:
181:
178:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
156:
155:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
129:
126:
122:
119:
118:
117:
114:
110:
106:
103:
102:
101:
98:
94:
91:
90:
89:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
65:
64:Bullshido.net
62:
60:
59:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
630:
627:
613:
609:
580:
576:
572:
553:
548:
531:
522:
518:
485:
468:
454:
411:
401:
372:
260:
218:
217:
192:
179:
134:
104:
92:
74:
68:
45:
43:
31:
28:
503:User:Phrost
313:Ebaumsworld
618:Slideyfoot
309:Newgrounds
147:Ashida Kim
585:Bullshido
473:AKADriver
442:Bullshido
419:Scb steve
377:Bullshido
339:this list
321:Scb steve
288:Bullshido
225:Bullshido
204:Isotope23
172:Isotope23
151:Scb steve
125:RGTraynor
113:Isotope23
97:RGTraynor
50:Sjakkalle
354:Slashdot
347:Slashdot
317:Slashdot
54:(Check!)
577:without
573:Comment
555:wwwwolf
532:Comment
390:cleanup
343:WP:AUTO
261:Comment
219:Delete/
180:Comment
105:Comment
75:No vote
590:WP:WEB
564:growls
536:WP:WEB
490:Phrost
241:search
229:McDojo
168:WP:WEB
160:WP:WEB
109:WP:WEB
79:Stifle
581:merge
560:barks
523:would
519:Keep'
455:juice
450:Mango
402:juice
397:Mango
315:, or
221:Merge
193:juice
188:Mango
71:a DRV
16:<
610:Keep
549:Keep
501:Per
486:Keep
469:Keep
373:Keep
93:Keep
83:talk
46:keep
600:Phr
541:Phr
507:Phr
433:Phr
359:Phr
292:Phr
265:MMA
253:Phr
186:.
143:NPR
123:.
566:)
448:.
393:}}
387:{{
311:,
85:)
77:.
48:.
562:/
558:(
477:☎
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.