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. Sandstein 12:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bro (online subculture)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unencyclopedic topic that is not clearly defined by the article, which is a tenuously held together string of media references (almost all of which are tongue-in-cheek). The sources cited include a LinkedIn profile, a Facebook page, a chat, a comedy performance misconstrued as relating to the topic, a profile of a business of little note, and a tongue-in-cheek slideshow (which is used as the only source for the entire history section). The only reliable sources relate to etymology, making the verifiable information no more than a dicdef. No evidence that reliable sources can be found. Feeeshboy (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...and recreate as a functional article. I'm willing to believe that an article on Bros could be well-supported in detailed in much the way of Hipster (contemporary subculture). This clearly isn't that article, and referring to it as an online subculture might just be erroneous. §everal⇒|Times 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the talk page indicate that this page was created as a class project. My vote remains the same. §everal⇒|Times 16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it's not just one class project, but one in a set of class projects. See User:LeshedInstructor for more information. §everal⇒|Times 16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And change the tag line to be "contemporary subculture". I am the article's creator and yes, this was created as part of a class project, but I also believe there is potential for a well supported article like Hipster (contemporary subculture), as §everal⇒|Times mentioned. --Lenwomp (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as stated in the page for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." I'd like to file this article for a "rescue". More reliable sources are needed, but this is a notable topic. --Lenwomp (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these reliable sources? Please show us that they exist. The article is near nonsense. LadyofShalott 12:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictdef, WP:NEO, WP:OR. --John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable neologism with an impressive number of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Trusilver 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We've been over the alleged "bro" culture at AfD before. My POV remains as it has in prior similar AfDs; that this is a dicdef at best, a neologism short of that, a WP:BULLSHIT matter the rest of the time, and that a faction has claimed in each and every one that reliable sources are out there, somewhere, maybe. How about, next time out, that such sources are produced as a prerequisite to creating an article ... as, in fact, they are supposed to be? Ravenswing 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What similar AFDs have there been? Dream Focus 09:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as complete BS. Even if this were a notable topic nothing but the word "bro" and "reflist" should remain. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a bunch of tripe. In Wikipedia terms, it's a combination of WP:DICDEF and WP:OR. LadyofShalott 01:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite and rename "Bros" are unfortunately a real thing, also called "frat boys". The type of guys who talk about nothing but sex, sports, and how drunk they got, are athletic and shallow, and enjoy humiliating others. Read through this article in Time magazine for example. [1] I don't see this as an "online" subculture, since they exist off the internet as well, and have for quite some time now. Having an article for just "Bros" might make sense. The current article has most of its content referenced to places that aren't reliable sources. Finding sources is difficult since "bros" gets results from "Super Mario Bros" to any number of other things. Dream Focus 09:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand this (and your link) correctly, the title is almost correct (that is, one word is correct, but not the "online subculture" part), but the article is incorrect and should be rewritten so that it's about something else completely, for which it is difficult to find sources besides an article from Time (according to which "bros" are "frat-boys and frat-boys wannabes"--pretty dicdeffy, it seems to me). Drmies (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename it Bro subculture. The aspects of their culture is mentioned. Google news archive search for "Bro culture" has some results. [2] Dream Focus 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Referencing? Have the authors of this article even heard of the concept? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (mostly) utter nonsense. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.