Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bromance (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PeR (talk | contribs) at 13:29, 12 February 2015 (→‎Sources: I don't see how those sources can be uses for a ''keep'' vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bromance

AfDs for this article:
Bromance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Bromance" is just a buzzword for concepts that already exist and are already well documented at platonic love, romance, friendship, male bonding and in other articles. (There is already a bromance article on Wiktionary.) Gronky (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded below Chris Smowton (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read other opinions I agree that this would make a nice complement to other more pertinent articles like friendship or male bonding and such. Perhaps include it in "in popular culture" or make a new section.
  • Delete. The word bromance is in the OED, so it's probably worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but I fail to see how it fits in an encyclopædia. I feel sad that Wikipedia is so obviously influenced by xkcd. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be having this discussion. J Alexander D Atkins (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Merge with Male bonding. Well-sourced article, and the subject is clearly not a passing fad. Wikipedia doesn't ban use of all slang terms. But there is a lot of duplication between this article and Male bonding, so they should probably be merged.Chessrat (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE This is my fifth time TRYING to vote on this. Its bullshit (the process). Bromance is a subcategory of platonic friendship. NONE of the articles references are to studies ABOUT bromance. They are to uses of the word. Words belong in dictionaries. If an article on platonic friendship exists, merge this with it. If not, then clearly this doesn't deserve it either!Abitslow (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It doesn't seem like it was actually well sourced, a number of veteran editors have reduced the article size substantially over the last 24 hours.
  • Delete 132.206.150.251 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because the word is dumb and people should stop using it doesn't mean the well-sourced article about said word should be deleted. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Closedmouth (and also agreeing with Jbeyerl). -- KTC (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's possible the article is a WP:CFORK and per Jbeyerl. Pufflepets (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article appears to distinguish "bromance" as a distinct category of friendship, provides plenty of reliable references, and is clearly sufficiently important as a cultural phenomenon to justify a separate article. Whilst many people dislike the word itself, this is not an acceptable reason for deletion. I feel that it would be inappropriate to merge this article into friendship, as bromance is (as the article notes) a specific and well-documented kind of friendship. We don't attempt to merge communism into socialism, although the one is simply a form of the other. In the same way, a merge here would be inappropriate. It's regrettable that a cartoonist's whim should be driving this debate, but we do have a general wiki-principle: just because you don't like something is no reason to delete it from Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a clearly defined topic, which is well structured. I also disagree with the issue that it contains original research, as it appears to be well-sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • very reluctant Keep...per WP:NAD - and specifically WP:NEO: "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, not books and papers that use the term. "...we have plenty of references here that do exactly that. WP:NOTE isn't an issue. However, considerable cleanup is required. Poor writing style isn't grounds for deletion. Suggested redirects such as Friendship are not synonyms - we wouldn't merge Love with Human behavior. Merge with Male bonding is possible, but there are connotations to bromance that aren't there in male bonding, so that merge seems 'iffy'. SteveBaker (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My initial impression was definitely delete. Then I saw how well sourced it was and I would have suggested merging with Male Bonding but that is an uncited stub and barely an article. Bromance is talked about, in reliable sources and the article while poorly written in places seems to meet all criteria. SPACKlick (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It doesn't seem like it was actually well sourced, a number of veteran editors have reduced the article size substantially over the last 24 hours.
  • Delete or Merge and Redirect. I agree with Abitslow, Pseudomonas, and Gronky. This article is just a present use-case of Male Bonding or Human Bonding, and should be merged into one of these. Additionally, WP:NAD says we don't really need an article just describing what the word is. Every reference in the Bromance article deals with a media usage of the term, not a reference for the term. Additionally, and I know this isn't a reason, but Bromance isn't really mentioned (and has no place) in the template. Shashwat986 → talk 16:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above & mainly Closedmouth - Yup it's a dumb word but there's sufficient sources in the article so passes GNG, so I don't really see a reason to delete... –Davey2010Talk 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — and redirect to Friendship. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is not an urban dictionary; just because some people use a term indistinguishable from friendship doesn't mean it should have its own encyclopedia article. The word is different, the meaning is not. Therefore, redirect to Friendship. --Gerrit CUTEDH 17:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the meaning is the same, you clearly have never had a bromance. I've got lots of friends, but bromances are rarer and entirely different from most friendships. RomanSpa (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It doesn't seem like it was actually well sourced, a number of veteran editors have reduced the article size substantially over the last 24 hours.
Comment - Male bonding would be the encyclopedic term. Merging or redirecting to that makes some sense. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Merge with Yaoi. While I understand the distaste at the term, it is no longer slang, and is an interesting social phenomenon, clearly distinguishable from Friendship, Male Bonding or Platonic Friendship. Votes to Merge with Friendship should perhaps be ignored as XKCD-inspired vandalism. Votes to merge with the stub Male Bonding or nonexistent page Platonic Friendship would require there was something to merge with, and they are not synonyms. Bromance phenomenon is interesting mostly for its marketing and cultural appeal aspects, which mostly target women (qv Yaoi), which is markedly different from the target demographic for male bonding (an action movie, guy-film staple). In a marketing sense, Yaoi is closest, and likely an influence on Bromance, but is still very different in both context and meaning. Yaoi also exists as at least a half-decent, well-cited page. DewiMorgan (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yaoi is a completely distinct topic from this article: it is about specifically sexual/romantic relationships between fictional male characters, rather than non-sexual/romantic relationships between real or fictional males. IF this article is redirected, yaoi would be a very poor choice. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the concept itself is a subconcept of friendship and male bonding and there may be lots of overlapping issues but we could use the same argumentation to merge friendship and male bonding. And whale and dolphin, plants and trees... --Enyavar (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:: The allegedly well-sourced article had a bunch of broken links. I've fixed them now, but still, having little superscript numbers all over the place doesn't necessarily mean it's actually sourced :) Chris Smowton (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect into male bonding, which is itself too short. The only thing worthwhile in the article as it stands is the mention of Korean and Japanese record companies encouraging these kinds of friendships. I would be happy to see 'Bromance' become a section in 'Male Bonding'. 7daysahead (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect with a stronger parent concept like platonic Friendship or similar. I am for keeping the article if it can be adequately differentiated from concepts like male bonding. Comment: I disagree with the claim that it is adequate as it is. The strong references are often about masculinity or masculine social etiquette (etc), but some citations are not clearly about bromance per se, just related, and are being used to pad the article. If there is relevant and strong academic literature there should be no need to hedge around the subject. Strangejames (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge to male bonding, which should redirect and merge to friendship, as per everyone above who said the same thing for all the obvious reasons.
Comment - the article was nominated for deletion in 2006, which concluded in a determination to delete, it is unclear why it ever returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.225.41 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect with male bonding. The concept is worthy of attention, but the name is a complete misnomer. When an article about a word that is created by combining "bro" and "romance" needs to be initiated by clarification that it is not romantic in nature, that's a pretty good sign that a serious encyclopedia shouldn't have that as the primary term used. The 'male bonding' article would be dramatically improved by the contents of this page, and they would have a title that makes sense.65.131.3.138 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jbeyerl, Pufflepets, RomanSpa, Joseph2302. Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As much as I believe this article does not warrant its own page and ought to be subsumed into homosociality, this AfD should be resolved later. Hollth (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly Merge, but as the article is right now, I find myself wondering where the information is. At least some of the cited sources are just there because the word occurred once or twice, and as I stated earlier, it seems to be a lot of words and not many actual facts. In the interests of full disclosure, I came here via xkcd, so that is a thing.108.50.51.25 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KiloByte 100.6.6.151 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Graft | talk. Benjamin (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term is commonly used. The article needs work, but it's possible to improve it. Empire3131 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a discussion of the term as a socially constructed phenomena in and of itself, distinct from male bonding. In particular, it's usage in modern fiction media, including criticism of such, has been fairly common of late. At the absolute least, it's clear that the term "bromance" would need its own section in the male bonding article, but I fully believe that there is sufficient information about Bromance specifically that an entire article can be derived from it. It's not just male bonding, it's male bonding in a cultural climate of homosexual acceptance/rejection overhauling, and the term came about because of this. It's an interesting topic, and one that has been extensively written about in the overall culture at large. I would not be surprised if there were papers published in academic journals about it (I do not currently have access to a university library to check though). Fieari (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment I just noticed AfD has a quick link to google scholar now. Check it out, bromance is actually discussed in academic papers as a concept independent of friendship and male bonding. This appears to confirm independent notability to me. Fieari (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (first choice) or Weak Keep (distant second choice) - It's a notable neologism but notability and sourcing doesn't mean it merits its own article if it's insufficiently different from existing concepts. I'm not convinced it's a distinct topic from e.g. friendship and/or male bonding. That doesn't mean there aren't nuanced differences, but there's not enough to say about those minor differences such that a separate article makes sense. The "characteristics" section strengthens my skepticism while the rest of the article is just a series of examples from pop culture. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and Redirect, a mention or perhaps a subsection on either Friendship or Male bonding should more than suffice. 194.16.178.140 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Gronky, or Redirect to romantic friendship or life partner. In re: Fieari, they may exist, but presently, the article's references are mainly/only people 'using' it, not studying nor talking about it. The actual study referenced (Rowan, George, et al.) does not appear to mention bromance. "Faux Friendship" does not distinguish 'bromance' from other friendships in any substantive way. "Male Imitation" is not a study of bromance but attempted application of the term to a fictional relationship.174.45.249.100 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect is the best option. Merging it into either Friendship or Male Bonding makes the most sense. That way, people still get the information they about the topic. (And clearly, it's something people want to know about.) But the information is better organized. A Bromance is really just a male friendship. The term has, I think, enough currency to warrant a section in another article, but not enough to warrant it's own page. Rylon (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and Redirect, bromance is just a synonym for male bonding or male friendship, a subsection or addendum in either of those articles would suffice. High Tinker (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT If it is merged, it should be merged with homosociality (which already has a subtopic on 'bromance'), not male bonding and most certainly not platonic love. Hollth (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. The article barely contains anything except etymology and example usage, i.e. discussion about the word, which should be in wikt:bromance, per WP:NOTDIC. The rest, if not already covered by the current article on homosociality should be merged into that article. Original research trying to establish that bromance is a new phenomenon, not covered by pre-existing terminology, should be removed.

Sources

  • Strong Keep Are we really doing this? Are we doing this and you all didn't even bother to look for sources first before arguing with each other? Both sides are stupid here, Delete and Keep. Ugh. Once again, it comes down to someone who actually follows how Wikipedia works to actually look for sources. And, surprisingly, I found them. Easily found them. Sources listed below. SilverserenC 08:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you found a couple instances of use is barely relevant. In any case, even if it were, your insults are absolutely out of place (and against Wikipedia normative, which you boast to know so well). I would suggest an appology on your side is in order.--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My "insult" isn't really directed at anyone specific. It is a general statement pointed at anyone who didn't bother to look for sources before voting. And, since I assume you followed the rules of AFD and did look for sources first, it is not directed at you. As for the sources, you're saying sources that are, especially for the first three, entirely about the term, its use, its meaning and representation in culture in media, and its evolution over time are not relevant? SilverserenC 09:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before you edditted your comment it was clearly insulting. I won't take notice, specially since you softened it. Regarding the sources, they may be relevant to this discussion, sure, but they are not as good as you may claim. First line in the abstract of your fisrt reference: "male friendship, or the "bromance,"". This calls for a merge more than a keep in my opinion.--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren:, surely the primary reason to delete or merge the article is that it does not describe a distinct concept from existing articles with more "proper" (formal) titles, such as platonic love? Various people above have asserted that bromance == friendship, which is clearly not the case, but can you convincingly distinguish the concepts of bromance and platonic love? Isn't the former just a slang euphamism for the latter? Chris Smowton (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how those sources can be uses for a keep vote. The ones that I could read online, and that actually talk about the word bromance (as opposed to just using it) define it as either friendship or homosociality that already have their own Wikipedia articles. Those sources support the merge and redirect vote. A source supporting the keep vote would have to establish that bromance is something different from other concepts and not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. - PeR (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Rylon and various others. This word is mostly used to describe heterosexual male friendship, known as "male-bonding", from a sarcastic, sometimes cheeky POV. Should perhaps be mentioned as part of an Article re Friendship or Male Bonding. "Male Bonding" is the NPOV term that this clearly NON-NPOV word ("bro-mance") is attempting to describe. Also, by nature of the term, it could be confusing for the reader. Havent found any sources that seem to indicate that it is used in the gay community for homosexual male romantic relationships...nor have we found any sources that indicate it is used to describe a sexual or romantic relationship between brothers...thus, it seems to be jargon or slang to describe male friendship or male bonding. Shark310 09:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bromance_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=646794617"