Talk:Womance

Okay but why not flo-mance? Womance doesn’t have a ring to it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjanney08 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability
Flash in the pan. A tiny bit of usage, briefly, but this WP:NEO did not make the cut. WP:NOTDICTIONARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After being accused of "drive-by tagging," I return to detail my searches. JSTOR had three hits, all transcription errors.  (e.g.: this 1939 article It falls into the class to which belong Dmitri WIerejkowski's Womance of leonardo da Vtnci and Rachel Annand Taylor's leonardo tfie Florentine presumably mechanicallly transcribed from a printed journal.")   More to the point, is WP:NEO which reads: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term."''  If we are to keep this article, that sort of source needs to be cited in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

it is about female Platonism. what is so great about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.14.116 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Female bonding is a plausible target for a merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)