Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bro (subculture)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete.  Singu larity  07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bro (subculture)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Strikes me as entirely made up. Pascal.Tesson 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:V. Possibly WP:MADEUP or WP:HOAX. Dbromage  [Talk]  04:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete even in the best case, this is a neologism. In the worst, it is something that was just made up one day. Resolute 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't delete - i live in the 714 area code in southern California. I know some people who are bros, and this article is extremely accurate. The bro sub-culture is mostly found in southern-California, in the Unites States, so if you don't live around here, you are probably not familiar with these types of people. If you don't believe the article, read some entries on Urban dictionary lol, not that creditable, but still proves a point thats its not made up. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro Ryannelson714 04:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response What the article really needs is citations. Even if the article does exist, without any relieble sources to support the information, the entire article is original research. Calgary 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that I have speedy deleted (CSD#G1) the article Bro Hoe which was also started by Ryannelson714. That being said, Urban dictionary is indeed not what we're looking for as a reliable source. In any event, while the subculture itself may be legit (and this has yet to be established), the article itself is clearly junk. Excerpts include fantastic BJAODN such as "Bros can be seen chilling with their female counter-part of the Bro, the Bro Hoe." Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response How is the article junk, this sub-culture is purely regional. I can find one website http://www.flatbiller.com/ that shows some examples. Also, search people from the 909 American area code on Myspace to look at further proof that this sub-culture exists. Ryannelson714 04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. They are not reliable sources. Dbromage  [Talk]  04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Then what would be a reliable source? Ryannelson714 04:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Explained in reliable sources. See also general notability guidelines to determine whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Dbromage  [Talk]  04:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Again, proving it exists isn't the only issue. Even if we could prove that the subculture exists, we need to prove that all of the information in the article is factual, which can only be done by citing independent sources. If said sources do not exist, even if it is because the subculture is regional, then I would suggest that the lack of third-party coverage means the subculture is not notable. If said sources do exist, consisting of more than just proof that the subculture exists in some way shape or form, please add them.


 * As far as reliable sources go, WP:RS says it all, including "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Websites may be acceptable, but more so if they are reputable, and involve editorial review. Self-published sources generally aren't reliable because anyone can publish them (hence the name). Calgary 04:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=102763674&MyToken=80bde370-6c02-4670-a606-2e1e8ae02e11

http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=101088837&MyToken=4fff113f-dbc8-4b89-b0f7-402582361347 http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=100451790&MyToken=51b57c42-8977-4991-9385-d1dc6d1434f1

Those Myspace groups are peer-edited, can those serve as proof? Ryannelson714 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response As I understand it, a MySpace group is not an actual publication, just a sort of community setting. And again, there's the problem of self-publication. Calgary 05:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as a neologism lacking in reliable sources. Myspace groups are not reliable sources, sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I really doubt this exists. Even if it does, nobody cares, it sure as hell isn't notable.  Giggy  Talk 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Dbromage. Even if not literally made up or a hoax, it still fails WP:V by a long shot. --MCB 05:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response How 'bout this, some if is about the college "bro" a different type of "bro" http://howto.thetunafish.com/?p=26 Ryannelson714 05:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. How 'bout finding some reliable sources, such as "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". Dbromage  [Talk]  06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Even if the supposed "subculture" exists there isn't any real proof that it has any real degree of notability. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  06:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsourced, possibly made up, and, even if true, has notability issues. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:MADEUP and nom's summary. I'd like to take this opportunity to say again, for the umpteenth time, that MySpace is NOT a reliable source. Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts) 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT, WP:OR, WP:V and probably WP:BULLSHIT as well. "Monster Energy Drink, the official beverage of the active Bro."  If that's the case we're all set.  Someone put us in touch with the Official Bro Governing Council and we can get verification.    Ravenswing  18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonsense. Corvus cornix 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response This is a subculture, just like skaters, surfers, emos, punk, goth, computer nerd, gangster/chavs, and others. nobody dictates how these genres of youth cultures are, they just become, evolve. just like hippies, it started somewhere, now its probably the most recongized subculture in the world, it didnt take scientific papers or political documents to tell the hippies what they are. Ryannelson714 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is the "most recognized subculture in the world" (something I would find hard to believe, but hey ...), then surely you will have no problem coming up with the reliable sources which prove your contention? Corvus cornix 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In his defense, I think he means that hippies are the most recognized subculture in the world.   Ravenswing  14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can't see why this hasn't been closed per WP:SNOW, the consensus can't be clearer. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as a neologism that lacks sourcing and assertion of notability. Patently fails WP:NEO. Blogs and myspace communities are not reliable sources. VanTucky  (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as being unsourced, neologistic and original research. You can't get much more deletable than that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Ha delete then, I don't even care. I hate bros anyway. I just thought debating would be fun. I lost. lol Ryannelson714 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You'll get your wish, about three days from now.   Ravenswing  19:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not even amusing.  SilkTork  *** SilkyTalk  18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.