Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogramming: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Listing on WP:DELSORT under Software |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
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 [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
===[[Brogramming]]===
:{{la|Brogramming}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogramming|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 22#{{anchorencode:Brogramming}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
:({{Find sources|Brogramming}})
per [[WP:NEO]]. — [[User:Jean Calleo|Jean Calleo]] <sup>([[User talk:Jean Calleo|talk]])</sup> 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''. [[User:Jorgenev|<
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>[[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 23:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)</small>
*<s>'''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 [[WP:OR|original research]] sprinkled with somewhat-related citations. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 00:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)</s>
**I have tightened up the wording to be closer to the sources, I would appreciate reconsideration. [[User:Jorgenev|<span style="font-family:Lucida Console; color:black; font-size:x-small;">'''JORGENEV'''</span>]] 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. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk: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"? — [[User:Jean Calleo|Jean Calleo]] <sup>([[User talk:Jean Calleo|talk]])</sup> 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. — [[User:Jean Calleo|Jean Calleo]] <sup>([[User talk:Jean Calleo|talk]])</sup> 18:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk: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 {{cl|Men}} today and finding this [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bro (online subculture)|recent Afd]] of [[Bro (online subculture)]] I concluded the "bro culture" article I sought did not exist. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jorgenev|<span style="font-family:Lucida Console; color:black; font-size:x-small;">'''JORGENEV'''</span>]] 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
:::To be significant coverage the sources also need to directly address the topic. [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-17/tech/29973802_1_bros-auto-mechanic-facebook-terms 1] does have a few sentences of content which do this. [http://bostinnovation.com/2011/08/31/the-10-commandments-of-brogramming/ 2] and [http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-learning-brogramming-the-hard-way-2011-9 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. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577028020203571342.html?mod=googlenews_wsj 3] provides less than one sentence of coverage. The remaining sources [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-15/tech/30159050_1_engineers-facebook-break 4] [http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/mark-zuckerberg-pays-tribute-steve-jobs-best-he-can/41751/ 5] [http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/16/code-curls-girls/ 6] [http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/17/500-startups/ 7] merely use the word; they don't address the topic directly. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' good article with sources to back it up. [[User:Askadaleia|Askadaleia]] ([[User talk:Askadaleia|talk]]) 09:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||