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

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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brogrammer

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

This seems to be a slang term with limited usage. Everything said in this article that isn't just defining the term has been stated in both the Gender disparity in computing and Sexism in the technology industry articles, rendering this article redundant. I propose we delete this article and redirect to Gender_disparity_in_computing#Fraternity-like_startup_environments or Sexism_in_the_technology_industry#Macho_culture as they contain the same information. TheDracologist (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as last time). No valid rationale for deletion has been given.

This term appeared in mainstream press (The Atlantic) three years ago. That is not a NEO, the article is sourced to demonstrate that it is a term of current and general use. It may be a slang term, but use by CNN is now far from "limited usage".

It is simply untrue to claim that the other two articles "have stated everything in this article". Sure, there is overlap, but the extent of discussion on 'brogrammer' is one sentence in Gdic. Nor do the sources overlap. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to point out that there was no consensus last time. It also seems that there is no usage in the last two years. The term may have been used in the article, but the article was not about the term itself, but rather macho culture in computing. I think expanding one of the sections I pointed to earlier would be more appropriate than giving this word its own article. TheDracologist (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this earlier, but what I meant when I said that everything in this article was covered in those articles wasn't that it was all right where the word "Brogrammer" was mentioned, but that throughout each of the articles, the points in this article are brought up in various places. If you read through the articles, you will see the parts about women getting fewer BS degrees in Computer Science, the amount of women citing workplace culture as a reason for changing careers away from computing careers, and macho culture in computing. TheDracologist (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No different than last time really. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 09:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last time the decision was not "keep" but rather "no consensus", so I don't understand how the last nomination would be an argument either way. Also, many of the people who said keep argued that it could improve, which it hasn't. Finally, the subject of the article seems to be getting less relevant over time, which might bring WP:SUSTAINED into play. TheDracologist (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny little note: I know "I haven't heard of it" isn't a good reason for deletion and this is the internet, so there's no reason you should believe me on what I say I am, but I feel like I should bring this up anyway. As a woman majoring in computer science, I would think I would have heard of this term before. Take this as you will. TheDracologist (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this certainly could use some copy-editing, but clearly this is notable based on the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this shit, bro. It's fuckin' sick... nificantly covered by independent sources over the span of several years. Now let's pound some Bawls and bang out some killer mergesorts. Jergling (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept has been covered by the media in detail, and the sources in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Someone could start up a merge discussion if they wanted, but I don't see any way we can delete this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - We don't necessarily need a Wikipedia article for every neologism that is invented. That's for Wiktionary to do, not Wikipedia. The concepts discussed in this article would be better handled at Sexism in the technology industry, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gotten discussion from secondary sources and the article makes a good demonstration of that writing from differing references. Sagecandor (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2016 (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.