Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogramming


 * 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. The analysis of the sources are that they are not substantial enough and that hasn't been refuted do asserting sources doesn't overcome the detailed analysis Spartaz Humbug! 18:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Brogramming

 * – ( View AfD View log )

per WP:NEO. — Jean Calleo (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NEO, which says "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", which this article does. JORGENEV  21:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per WP:NOR. I thought this was a well-referenced dictionary definition with the slightest bit of encyclopedic content. Then I started checking the content of the sources, and discovered they didn't back up the assertions in the article. While I'd be inclined to forgive the brief secondary-source coverage of the word if there were well-referenced encyclopedic content in the article, too much of it is original research sprinkled with somewhat-related citations. --Pnm (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tightened up the wording to be closer to the sources, I would appreciate reconsideration. JORGENEV  08:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That did fix the original research problems and clarifies this discussion. See my transwiki/delete/userfy response below. --Pnm (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comment by nominator: the article is kind of unclear on what brogramming actually is — it's a word and its definition is given, but the first sentence says it's a meme and the article doesn't explain what makes it a meme. If it is indeed a notable meme then it might belong in Wikipedia, but as simply a neologism I don't think it does. What exactly is the meme here? Translating things into brospeak? Is it a notable internet meme? Does it belong in the article called "brogramming"? — Jean Calleo (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been edited but my concern wasn't addressed. It appears that one of the topics, either the word or the meme (if it is indeed a meme), is trying to inherit notability from the other. I added a tag because the article is unclear on what the subject actually is. — Jean Calleo (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Transwiki, and delete (or userfy) per WP:NOTDICT. The secondary-source coverage is too light and says too little to satisfy WP:N at this time. If this meme hangs on, it will probably attract more substantial coverage which can help generate an encyclopedic article. Anticipating more coverage in the future, I thought to look for a redirect target, but after doing some work on today and finding this recent Afd of Bro (online subculture) I concluded the "bro culture" article I sought did not exist. --Pnm (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic has been the subject of three full news articles, two in Business Insider and one in BostInnovation (a RS, has editorial staff), as well as one full article in TechCrunch about a subsidiary event and then a whole host of minor mentions. That is significant coverage. JORGENEV  14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be significant coverage the sources also need to directly address the topic. 1 does have a few sentences of content which do this. 2 and 3 (the video, not the text) are substantial but don't take the topic seriously – they seem to be primarily about providing humor and propagating the meme, not reporting on it – more like primary than secondary sources. 3 provides less than one sentence of coverage. The remaining sources 4 5 6 7 merely use the word; they don't address the topic directly. --Pnm (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep good article with sources to back it up. Askadaleia (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2011 (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.