Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bromance

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. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, then recreated with the reasoning "added reference section and a reference, and tagged as stub". Well, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Punkmorten 19:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. May be it requires cleanup etc. - not a delete. - Aditya Kabir 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I thought about perhaps moving to Wiktionary, but it might not meet the criteria for inclusion there, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKT (talk • contribs)
• Delete and move to Wiktionary. I am not familiar with Wiktionary, if it doesn't suit there, just delete this article. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change posiiton to Strong Delete. Now that I have done a quick research on the net, the entry seems completely useless. - Aditya Kabir 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - because it is a dicdef, and it cires no reliable sources. -- Whpq 20:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply re: previous speedy delete - I was the one that reverted the speedy delete, and my reasoning was not "added reference section". On the discussion page of this article I said that a web search for the term Bromance pulled up a couple hundred hits from a wide variety of web sites, indicating that it is in fact a slang term that is receiving some wide spread use. The speedy delete used was under the "patent nonsense" criteria, but as the use of this word actually does occur on a non-trivial number of different websites it does not fall under that speedy criteria category. Therefore I added a quick reference, placed the article as a stub and recommended giving interested editors a chance to investigate the word to see if the article could be expanded with additional references, should be moved to Wiktionary or should be deleted entirely. No matter which way the consensus goes, though, this wasn't a good speedy delete candidate. Dugwiki 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Re: references I added an additional reference from a SURF Magazine dictionary of slang from flipping through a web search for "Bromance" on ask.com. One dilemma here is that I found a lot of web pages that use the term, but they are almost all blog sites and forums which normally can't be used as references. It's an interesting catch 22, because the word is a slang term, and therefore not commonly used in formal publications, so even though it appears to be used in informal settings it's hard to find a formal citation source since they would avoid using informal slang. The word is mentioned in a quote from the television show "Big Brother" on a couple of sites, but again not on an official site. There was a musical tour called "True Bromance" by a punk rock group, but it wasn't obvious whether the group was notable or just a local band somewhere. Kind of a frustrating catch 22, trying to find formal sources to verify a term is used informally, but oh well. Worst case, if reasonable references aren't found, the article can ultimately be deleted and maybe recreated later if and when it appears in some better sources. :/ Dugwiki 21:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I'm don't have a problem with the article moving to Wiktionary either as a word definition. You'll still have the same question of which references to use, though. Dugwiki 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete protologism. Guy 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the information provided by Dugwiki, transwiki to the Wiktionary. —Mitaphane _talk 19:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added it because I searched and it didn't exist here! "wikipedia know everything"-no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.230.33.10 (talk • contribs)

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.