Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy-cry


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Guy-cry

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

(Previously de-prodded) Non-notable neologism; no references. Relevant search engines hits are few and far between (e.g., and these appear to be referencing the link in the article, which doesn't use the term "guy-cry"). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Buddy film. The topic as defined in this article, "films [that] address a male audience, but have strong emotional material" is too indiscriminate for an encyclopedia article; Buddy film should cover most of the same terrain, in a more discriminate fashion.  Baileypalblue (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've heard the term so I guess it is used now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.217.140 (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've heard of it isn't a very compelling argument. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Coverage about this appears in newspapers over a period of time when doing a Google News search. Specific articles include this NPR broadcast and this Chicago Tribune article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Just did a very quick stab at expansion and sourcing and there is MUCH about this specific topic in reliable sources showing it as a phenomenom that has recieved extended coverage that can easily make this a terrific article... well worth having on board to Improve wiki. I suggest tagging for expansion and further sourcing. Deletion, merging, and reditection not at all needed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those sources don't contain "guy-cry" at all, or don't address the term. (An article named "Movies that make a guy cry" doesn't establish it as a notable term.) I tagged them as failed verification. Most of what's there only have the words "guy cry" next to eachother in the article; the only sources calling this a genre are the Fox News piece and Kass, and they're both editorials. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The concept is about a genre of films that make guys cry. Between MichaelQSchmidt and I, we've shown enough sources to establish this as a notable concept.  I would also disagree with your assessment that the referencing supplied by MichaelQSchmidt placed in the article fails verification for a couple of the references.  For example,  is marked as failing verification in the lede.  The article specifically uses the phrase as in this passage; "Might the definitive guy-cry movie be a film in which the guy absolutely must not cry? "  That it deals with emotional impact of the movies is mentioned several times as in "...there's no denying the emotional power and legitimacy of Gary Cooper re-enacting Lou Gehrig's farewell address to his fans..." for example.  An assestion that Oregon Live compiled a list of movies that makes guys cry  is also challenged as failing verification.  The very title of the article is "Sad scenes: Movies that make a guy cry", and unsurprisingly, it's a list.  I don't see what verification it has failed.  The EW article is about guy-cry films although the statement is incorrect and needs fixing as it is more than twelve movies and is a reader poll.  And the Exodus episode is a weak reference (incorrectly linked) as it should have been to the overview where there is a quoe for guy cry.  Despite the weakness of the latter two references which are to trivia entries, it's quite clear that the main concept is referenceable to reliable sources, and teh key issue of notability for the article has been addressed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2009 (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.