Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Bro

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. Or rather, no actionable consensus - I get the impression that we do have consensus not to have a separate article, but to cover this topic in one or more of the existing election-related articles. But there's no agreement here about what the target article(s) should be. I recommend exploring this further through a merger discussion on the article talk page. Sandstein 08:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Bro[edit]

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

Oddly found in Category:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Apparent WP:NEOLOGISM, too soon to determine notability. One of the many names thrown around in this US presidential election. If not deleted best to merge somewhere. Wickypedoia (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEOLOGISM is the right call. Also seems to lack lasting notability so delete per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Siding with the above calls of WP:NEOLOGISM, I'd say that undue weight is lent to the term, as most of the sources are very tabloid-esque opinion pieces/editorials in news outlets and blogs. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and also add as a short section to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 Serious journalism on Bernie bros exists [1], [2] as does extensive coverage in a light vein in serious places [3], [4]. It goes back at leas to October 2015 - very early in the campaign season. And it continues [5]. Mu news google search [6] turned up 79,300 hits (of which I looked through the first page, and the first entries in a "sort by date" search). The sourcing exists to pass WP:GNG. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:GNG pass; The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources over a period of time, and notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- NA--NTEMP? It's been, what a week? A month? Half an election cycle? We're still in TEMP. Drmies (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe merge – It's become a popular term, and has become associated with the campaign. If this page is kept, it could probably be expanded a little bit. If it's merged, then it should be merged into the 2016 campaign page. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 06:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a WP:NEOLOGISM with relevance only to the 2016 election. It has no lasting notability and is WP:NOTNEWS. Reference can be made to the language used in the discussion of the 2016 election.Thalia42 (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sick of these bullshit articles related to the US election. This is a blatant WP:POVFORK and fails WP:NEO, WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS AusLondonder (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AusLondoner. Mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage with no indication of long-time notability. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. Recall WP:NTEMP. Easily passes WP:GNG with the sources currently listed, even lots of us (including myself) think it's dumb. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I rewrote the article with better sourcing (except for "section: "Online reaction", which still needs cleanup, edit for POV, source review). E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the work you did, but still think this should be deleted as a non-notable NEOLOGISM without lasting notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In a similar vein, I still think it ought to be merged as I noted in my original vote. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you 1 Wall Street Journal discussion of Bernie Bros, which follows the USA Today definition already on the page, and raise you by one Samantha Bee (see news search here: [7]; youtube video here: [8] Seriously, guys, Samantha Bee supports notability, but the article is serious and the sourcing is serious, extensive and massive.E.M.Gregory (talk)

Added a PoliSci study of the BernieBro.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And more material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of sourcing alone doesn't mean an automatic keep. Nobody has denied that sources in legit publications exist, just that that shouldn't make this a page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when the sourcing suffices to provide reliable, secondary sources for the origin, use, definition, notability and impact of a neologism, sourcing does in fact mean keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I surmise that some of the delete iVotes were prompted by the sourcing in the article which, when I came to it, was sourced heavily to blogs and non-mainstream news outlets. My rewrite depends on major, mainstream sources like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic and USA Today. Really, I think with coverage that is ongoing, and in-depth since October, this topic sails past WP:GNG. The larger challenge was not too few sources in searches, but, rather, sifting through the myriad hits on this topic in reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 - clearly this term has no notability outside the campaign. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very Merge into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 for this term is all than put Pro-Hillary/Anti-Bernie propaganda as term sound (obivously) nothing attacking majority of Bernie Supporters that in reality are Liberal with minor exceptions to Moderates or rarely Conversatives. Put I saiding isnt mostly merge into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 simply because his name on it, Put rest of page have Anti-Bernie bias in articles otherwise. 2606:A000:85C0:E00:59E5:EB0:6143:A583 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGEDECIDE specifically cautions against articles becoming "too unwieldy." The article for Sanders presidential campaign is already very long and merging the entirety of this article would make it far more unwieldy and lengthy. I think a much better option would be to include a very brief summary of the contents of this article at Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 and then direct readers here with {see also}} or {main article}}.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I'm not seeing this have any better signs of solid independent notability apart from the campaign itself. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that there is no official connection to the campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge; despite the page needing work to make this clear, there are now sources that describe the use of the term, which should defuse the WP:NEOLOGISM objections. 75.88.47.95 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social media in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 22:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except The Bernie Bros have exploded into the news cycle, again, in the wake of the Nevada Democratic State Party Convention ruckus, with article like these [9], [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup – The topic continues to receive coverage in reliable sources almost right up to this very day. Again, WP:NTEMP comes into mind. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Bernie Bro news sorted by date [11].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

either Keep or Merge per above.--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 04:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we see them again tomorrow, delete--we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Today's (California) headlines: Are Bernie Bros Actually Going to Turn Out to Vote? [12]; Trump Thugs and Bernie Bros [13].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange. A few of my headlines: Rescued Chibok girl to meet Nigerian president, Turkey politics: Erdogan ally nominated as PM, Lessons from Venezuela, Syrian government forces, allies capture extensive area near Damascus, 5-year old suspended for bringing bubble gun to school, Recovering addicts explain why synthetic drugs are so dangerous, Humpback whale freed from tangled fishing lines off California coast, Trump launches media offensive to rehab image,Dying GOP Senator Apologizes to Muslims for Donald Trump, Trump taps McCain's VP lawyer to vet his vice president, Grand jury urges tracking system for vote-by-mail mail ballots, Runoff's Early Voting Extended to 9 Days, Bayer makes move for Monsanto in global agrichemicals shakeout,Pew study finds younger adults driving growth of ride-hailing appsLawmakers slam Frontier for bad phone and Internet service, Rose Byrne on Returning for Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising, Alexis Bledel Is a Mom! Gilmore Girls Welcomes Baby With Husband Vincent Kartheiser, Jeff Probst answers Survivor: Kaôh Rōng finale burning questions. No Bernie Bros. I did not include opinion pieces (like you did), nor did I look at the news in other languages. Sorry, your point? Drmies (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces in major news media do indicate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National news google: Time, MSNBC, Salon. [14]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. News sources. News follows the news, and rolls by what it called the news cycle, and WP is WP:NOTNEWS. It's really not hard to understand--not everything that is newsworthy is of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that we defer keep and revisit later. I am adding solid reporting from the Los Angeles Times to the article now. I suggest that given the fact that coverage in experiencing a major boomlet; the fact that this topic is part of the heated dispute between the liberal/Clinton and progressive/Sanders wing of a party engaged in a major political struggle; and the fact that coverage of the Bernie Bros is likely to continue until after the Philadelphia Convention and perhaps through the election, that we punt. i.e., keep this for now and see how the article looks in a few months. WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's default to "delete" then and see if a year from now this has proven to be something notable. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that Los Angeles Times piece I just added is typical of my effort to stick to stodgy, mainstream media in my rewrite of this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now largely for the reasons given by E.M.Gregory. The article has gotten significant attention from the mainstream media, but I think its too early to tell whether this is actually going to tell whether the term is really significant or if its just a neologism that got a spurt of news coverage during the primary season. I think it would therefore be best to keep for now, and re-examine this a couple of months into the general election if Clinton wins, or a couple of months after the general election in the incredibly unlikely event that Sanders wins. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leading to delete or keep given mostly reasons from Drmies with WP:NOTNEWS, This will not last until Third time call for deletion. Simply because Mainstream News pundits (who probably only attacking last Democratic Candidate in this 2016 election race) keep using term or use more recently as Propaganda againist Sanders supporters, Put regardless most of americans will less likely buying on term or its meaning since only 6% of americans have care about it while 52% others will believe some sources as serious, Seen from this finding^[1] (except Hillary supporters until Democratic Convention). 98.27.17.168 (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (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.

^ https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-news/single-page/

[1] ttps://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-news/single-page/

[1]