Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womance

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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Womance

Womance (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 currently getting its day at AfD. That term at least has seen very widespread usage in the media, and made it into the Oxford English Dictionary. "Womance" on the other hand seems to have far less usage and recognition. The sources presented in the article are poor ("Urban Dictionary" - seriously?, a couple of dead links, a blog, and a local newspaper site). the wub "?!" 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wiktionary actually has halfway sane usage citations. Chris Smowton (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Squashed Urban Dictionary citation. Chris Smowton (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - term is of growing social importance. Have added some extra links to illustrate this which are better sources.Dutchy85 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a

WP:Crystal ball. It might be of growing social importance, however, it does not yet meet the criteria. If, in the future, it does so, then, and only then, should this article be included. Hollth (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a neologism of dubious notability. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 02:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks notability and lacks any substance that separates it from what would be included in a dictionary. The examples section is
  WP:NAD and has no RS, this article should most definitively be deleted.Hollth (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Bromance - there are some sources, but its notability and existence as a neologism is entirely tied to and based on Bromance. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The above assumes the Bromance article is kept. If not, I would say redirect to female bonding. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim, and Merge to Bromance. I would have said delete, but there do appear to be some references to it-- but as Rhododendrites said, the references are just a subset of the Bromance concept. It's the same thing, just gender flipped, and does not appear to exist as an idea independent from Bromance. That said, there's also a lot of original research going on here, and that needs to be cut out. "Examples" is particularly bad. Fieari (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to
  talk) 08:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not a dictionary, and on top of that, insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources (as noted above, blogs don't count). Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dutchy85 Benjamin (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to bromance and consider porting over the Huffpo source for a mention of the term; I'm unimpressed with the other sources, but it could be built up in the merged article if better sources are provided. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per kikichugirl.
  talk) 22:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment redirecting to bromance would show a certain tone-deafness -- the dude version of this passes muster, the lady one doesn't, and so on -- so for diplomatic purposes it would be better to direct to homosociality or similar rather than imply that this is strictly a derived version of the Nearest Equivalent Man Thing. (As usual with this sort of issue, there isn't a WP policy saying "be nice" in this way, but it seems like a pretty harmless application of IAR to forestall a needless incident) Chris Smowton (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important term in pop culture, increasingly used. More than a dictionary definition, since the term is changing, has usage in pop culture (particularly analysis of media), is an encyclopedic topic. Reliable sources in major publications such as USA Today, LA Times (references added 2/16/2015).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Very close to
  WP:NEO but I think it just about scrapes by with it's sources, has room to improve. Artw (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to homosociality or some such. Even if this term is being used enough to be a notable usage, WP is about concepts, not terms. --Macrakis (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to homosociality or some such. When I looked at the sources for this article, I found that several of them had already been removed from the web. The peak usage of this term seems to have passed, i.e. short-lived neologism. Samsara 20:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References in USA Today and LA Times have already been added, as above. Additional references subsequently added. Concept and sourcing is not as established as
  social construction is only a partial match - it is an oversimplification to see this as the simple flip of bromance. Being very familiar with bromance, I really don't see this concept eliding elegantly over there, nor do I see any strong editorial reason for pushing the merging of the articles. The concept is a poor partial match for female bonding. I recommend keep, even though I do not see this particular article becoming much more than a stub for now - but I think it's a reasonably referenced stub, with adequate concept exploration and analysis in some of the citations, including chapter-length discussion. (FeatherPluma (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (updated FeatherPluma (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC))[reply
  ]
• Keep, strongly agree with analyses by Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) and FeatherPluma (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete classic example of neologism. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak, weak keep or wediwect to Elmer Fudd. Seems to just barely crawl over the NEO bar with enough sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2015 (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.