- Brogramming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)
- Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)