Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogrammer

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. Sandstein 08:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brogrammer[edit]

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

More of a slang word (even though it's in use by Media sources), than a truly encyclopedic topic. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Created deletion discussion for Brogrammer.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale- Delete or secondly Merge (per Borock and others): In my personal opinion I think this term is more worthy of Urban Dictionary than an Encyclopedia. That aside, "Brogrammer" is a combination of "bro" and "programmer", the first of the two being slang itself. Now the sources used for the article use the word in quotes or describe it in some other fashion as not to confuse it with a proper word and to identify it as slang. I question it's notability in the sense that the term may not be widely used or continue to be relevant at all in the future, sort of along the lines of WP:FRINGE. There's No Such Thing as a Brogrammer I tend to agree with this source which is actually used in the article. One of the other sources is sort of a mock up encyclopedia from a computer magazine. The rest seem to be sources about sexism within jobs in computer related industries. These sources use the term in quotes as slang, and there are no mainstream media sources or any source using it as a standalone term without explanation. So while this term may be warrant a mention in a feminism article about sexism or perhaps a short description in computer related article, I do not think it's valid enough to require it's own article. At the very least this article title should be followed with "(slang)" such as Cornhole (slang) and Redskin (slang) have. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep "even though it's in use by Media sources" Anyone see the problem with this as a nomination? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: A bit late with my full rationale, sorry. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep -- I think the article clearly seem to be more than a dictionary definition, but it needs to be expanded to be truly worth including. Monni (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our sole concern at AfD is notability. Everything else is a content issue for discussion elsewhere. In the case at hand, notability is clearly established by numerous reliable independent secondary sources, including entire articles devoted to the topic in BusinessWeek, CNN and The Atlantic. Msnicki (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the sole concern by any means. The article also has to be encyclopedic, and pass WP:NOT. Also, some things are notable, but are deserving of their own article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough RS to have this existing. Does need some padding though. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Women in computing which already has a section titled "Brogrammer culture". The connection to a hostile work environment for women in programming seems to be the main concern of the sources. Borock (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But given the clear notability established by multiple reliable sources devoting whole articles to the topic, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the article and add a {{main|...}} tag to that section in Women in computing? Msnicki (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Brogrammer" isn't a topic. It's a cutesy neologism discussed in articles about the actual topic, which is the male-dominated culture of the (U.S.) technology industry. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree though the word is used in the general media, it is used specifically for the purpose of derogatorily describing sexism in a specific industry, so it only really belongs in those places. The term is not used by or to describe literal beings (it is used to describe an idea or culture of sexism), nor would a group choose to identify as this except maybe in a humorous fashion, given the negative connotation. You might be able to argue this is a label/descriptor, but it's way too new and only used practically in writing (and always in quotes or italics, as it is not in a dictionary) to be a notable topic for an encyclopedia. This term is the very a definition of a neologism, a newly coined word or expression, and that itself could warrant deletion without even considering the other points mentioned in this discussion.
—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator that this is not a knowledge article suitable for an encyclopaedia. It isn't clear to me that a "brogrammer" describes anything real in the technology industries or that there is such a thing as "brogrammer culture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.18.221 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Women in computing#Brogrammer culture as suggested by Borock. There's a real article in here somewhere (Sexism in the technology industry is remarkably underdeveloped), but not at this title. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per nom. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. This is a neologism—something explicitly mentioned as a reason for deletion at WP:DEL-REASON, unless there are RSs. Yes, this "word" has been seen in general media, but those are not RS's for neologisms; we need dictionary entries for that. I agree that some of this could be merged to Women in computing or Sexism in the technology industry, and a redirect left from here to there. btw, refs 5, 6, 7, and 8 do not mention this term (but those refs would make complete sense in the Women in computing or Sexism in the technology industry articles, if they're not already there). Jeh (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some very good points, stated in a nicer fashion and with better backing than my nomination.—Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: I could only repeat what Jeh already wrote above. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the thought that The Atlantic might not be an RS for a neologism to be bizarre. Google News is drowning with hits for this term, and they describe it in detail, such as this article from CNN. Whether this culture actually exists or not is immaterial. What matters is whether the media has reported on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather than focusing on the cool aspects of being a brogrammer, including beer, weights, and brotein, the article is an excuse to whine about sexism. --IO Device (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. Msnicki (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article to mischaracterize brogramming as being sexist. If this changes, so will I. A man can be macho without being sexist. In its current form, the article is a platform for feminist claptrap. --IO Device (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I respect your opinion of the content. But all we consider at AfD is notability, not content. If there are multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the subject, even if they're not cited in the article, the subject is considered notable under WP:GNG and we keep the article. Content is a matter for other discussions, usually on the article talk page, not at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that deletion is solely about notability. I have had numerous articles on notable topics Speedy Deleted on the grounds that their content was too poor. As an aside, also consider the recent AfD discussion of pseudoginsenoside F11 where I changed my response from Delete to Keep after the article was rewritten; its notability was never in question. --IO Device (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki: While notability is certainly a big consideration, it isn't the only viable reason for deletion nor is it the sole concern per WP:DEL-REASONS. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this thread I thought sure "beer, weights, and brotein" was meant ironically. Maybe not? In any case, the term is almost exclusively used in the context of sexism in computer science and in the technology industry. This is sort of like objecting to mansplaining on the basis that sometimes men really do need to explain things. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the term sullied to promote a feminist agenda.
Maybe the food industry and science writers can catch on to writing about brotein and broscience in a similar context of sexism. And what about bromance - it's soo sexist! Now this, is meant ironically. --IO Device (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article in The Atlantic makes it for me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jeh and Lightgodsy summed it up pretty well. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor neologism. The first paragraph is a single example of its usage by a single company at a single university's career fair. The second paragraph is not about the 'term'. It's about the computer science industry. Violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). @Tomwsulcer: the article in The Atlantic only mentions 'brogrammer' in the title and the final paragraph. The article is about the industry, not the term. All of the sources are. So it's also a WP:COATRACK. I would support merging it to the women in computing or sexism in tech articles (someone may also want to propose merging those two also if it hasn't already been done), but can we please change the heading name to something more encyclopedic than 'Brogrammer Culture'. That heading name needs serious work... ― Padenton |☎ 02:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not just in The Atlantic but used in many places, such as all these sources, plus it is a term in pop culture causing much interest, related to its being part of the sex wars and the dynamic field of computing; the extent of usage suggests it is way beyond the neologism stage and is indeed an encyclopedic topic, much more than a dictionary definition. How well the current Wikipedia article covers the term, currently, suggests need for improvement, but I feel the term belongs in Wikipedia regardless, to reply to @Padenton:.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Per WP:NOTNEO it's not enough if the term is used by media sources, it's what the sources say about the term. Besides using it as a fancy article title or derogatorily it isn't rigidly defined or actually used to describe real world people/things, it's thrown around as a combination of two independent words to drive a idea/point or "culture" about/of sexism in tech industries. It may have a place in one of those type articles in it's own section (with a redirect even), but not its own standalone article. It isn't used in practice really outside of that stereotype (which may not even be very accurate or describe this industry as a whole). Very limited usage, I would have to disagree with you on it causing much interest in pop culture or in other words the mainstream. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy:, when NPR prominently discusses brogrammer culture, along with many many other sources, it means the term is notable. NPR talked about a "running conversation about how to constructively change the systemic, entrenched issues" talking about how the tech industry has a sexist leaning, and they used the term brogrammer to sum this up. USA Today described brogrammers as "computer programmers with frat house sensibilities" and suggested it was a hot subject in the news. That's two reliable sources but there are many more. Issues, such as whether the term is derogatory or rigidly defined or used to describe "real world" things, are irrelevant. QED notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QED Fails WP:NOTDICT. ― Padenton |☎ 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICT says "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. (I bolded the term concept). Brogrammer is a concept, easily fits within the realm of an encyclopedia entry.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: And all of that 'concept' is unrelated to the term itself, therefore, it doesn't belong in an article for said term, leaving the only possible content in the article the term's definition and the story about how some company used it on a sign at a college career fair. ― Padenton |☎ 23:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Those sources further my point that anyone searching for that word will be looking for the concept of sexism in the industry, not the idea of a actual macho programmer. That's why my stance is that it should be put in one of the articles above listed for a potential merge (with redirect) if someone cares to do so OR simply have brogrammer redirect to sexism in the technology industry (which is being considered for a merge with the other potential article mentioned above), while this here is deleted. It isn't used in any other context, hence no need for its own article. By WP:NOTEWORTHY the criteria for article content is less scrupulous, and I think another article on the subject it relates to is where it belongs. Per WP:NOPAGE it really needs those other concepts (in the suggested merged places above) with it to be notable, if we go by it being defined how it generally is defined as a macho programmer by this source here at pc mag encyclopedia it would clearly fall under WP:NOTDICT. So either way this article should go. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the subject of sexism in the technology industry as being different conceptually from the subject of Brogrammer. Sexism can take many forms, including women being sexist as well as men, and in many industries; brogrammer, in contrast, is limited to the computer industry, describes a certain type of male programmer, and is ["tongue-in-cheek slang for a high-tech geek who works out a lot in the gym, is popular with the opposite sex, likes to party and is admired by his buddies for his flair and super coolness...". That PC Magazine thinks it is important enough to supply a definition of the term suggests there is (1) a need to know about the term (2) insufficient clarity that the term needs defining. In short, it is an encyclopedic topic worthy of being in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While they do define it, I take it as more of a joke than anything, the picture and caption is most certainly humor. Just because they include a neologism in their criteria for a self titled "Encyclopedia" type entry, doesn't mean it fits our criteria or belongs here in Wikipedia. It's more of a reference for the articles in that specific magazine, rather than a reputable source or standard. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: All that's nice and dandy, but if you look at the article, you'll notice it's entirely focused on sexism targeting women. It may need a bit of work on that front, but nothing that would prevent brogrammer from being merged into it. As for PC Magazine, I think in your haste you neglected to check what else is in their dictionary, which is surprising seeing as how there's a nice navigation bar to go to words that start with any letter. Let's look at a few, shall we? Should we make sure that each of these has its own article in Wikipedia or add them to AfC? [1] How about these? [2] Do I need to continue or do you see what I am saying? Merge/Delete. ― Padenton |☎ 23:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed meant to mention that myself, they don't have a high standard (in other words they are not very picky) with which they decide what they will include in their "Encyclopedia". We have a much higher standard. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. Since Padenton questioned the usefulness of terms in PC Magazine here, we can compare their list to Wikipedia's. If we take the first 10 PC Magazine encyclopedia entries, we get Q R Code, Q Switch, Q&A, Q-bus, Q-server, Q.7xx, Q10, QA, QA Analyst, QAM. Seven are covered in Wikipedia; three are not; this shows a clear correlation between PC Magazine and Wikipedia. So I fail to see your point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A high percentage of the entries there may be notable and also have a corresponding article here, but they aren't notable here per se because they are included there. We don't know the criteria they use to determine inclusion therefore I'd question whether we can draw a correlation from that. A better word than "encyclopedia" could be used to describe their collection of information. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Tomwsulcer: again it seems you've made the mistake (unintentional, I'm sure) of taking a shortcut. Your vote, as I understand it, is in favor of giving 'Brogrammer' its own article, not merging the content to another article nor deleting it outright. Of the 10 existing articles you listed (which you claim are articles for the terms in the PC mag encyclopedia):

Q Switch is a red link. Q switch doesn't exist on wikipedia.
Q R Code is actually here: QR code, its own article, but a far more substantial topic than 'brogrammer', obviously. Q&A, as listed in that encyclopedia is actually listed here Q&A (Symantec), again, a much more substantial article. Q-bus has a full article. Q10 has a full article, BlackBerry Q10. Yet again, much more content. QA's article is here Quality assurance again, blahblahblah. QAM is a redirect to here: Quadrature amplitude modulation, again, blahblahblah.
Q-server doesn't have an article. It's a term for a long-defunct protocol by Novell. It comes up as blue because it's a redirect to print server, which actually makes no mention of q-server. Q.7xx also doesn't have an article, it's a redirect to Signalling System No. 7, where Q.7xx is mentioned a single time. QA Analyst is actually on WP as a redirect, Quality assurance analyst, redirects to Quality control.

So there we are, the truth at last. All the articles that actually exist of the 10 you looked at, 4 terms don't exist on wikipedia at all, and the 6 that do are far more substantial than Brogrammer. Also, unlike Brogrammer, they are not invented neologisms. None of these are actually terms. They are products, technologies, scientific concepts, or career fields, and that is why they are notable, not because someone made it up one day and it was mentioned in a few news articles. ― Padenton |☎ 01:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you say six, I say seven, that does not really matter, we're dickering over details. About Wikipedia and neologisms: pretty much all new terms were neologisms at one point, created by combining terms, applying a metaphor, using a portmanteau, etc. Terms like Fixer-upper and Cityscape were once neologisms but they are included in Wikipedia now, properly so. What Wikipedia does not want is to foist new terms on the public, to avoid popularizing terms invented here in workshop Wikipedia, terms which were not in the popular media, not in common parlance, but terms which Wikipedia hammered together out of thin air. To so foist would be original research. But when neologisms are born in common parlance, popularized in the media, such as brogrammer, then it is perfectly fine for Wikipedia to include it here provided it meets notability requirements (and it does). The term brogrammer is clearly out there, in use, Wikipedia can properly chronicle what it means; for further clarification, see neologism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, If you're not going to read, I'm not going to continue wasting my time indulging you. The subjects that had articles are not terms and were never neologisms.― Padenton |☎ 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Looking at WP:NEOLOGISM, which you just brought up- Articles that use the term rather than are about the term are insufficient to support articles on neologisms. No one is talking about macho programmers, it's used to convey an idea of sexism in the industry and as such it belongs solely in one of those type articles, not in it's own. Per WP:NOPAGE, "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." it should be merged if it were to be included. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap redirect the word to a sexism in computing article, it has no use or value on it's own page (article) without a broader context. WP:NOTADICT, Wikipedia is not the place to chronicle what it means, that may be appropriate for wikitionary whose inclusion criteria differs and may allow it. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to sexism in the technology industry. Brogrammer culture was an identifiable phenomenon before the portmanteau was coined, but might be best described in a article devoted to the broader topic. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 09:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge it somewhere. Either way, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and looks like the term is used in relation to another situation. The word is not the subject, it's just related to the subject. PhantomTech (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a definition, and Wiktionary has a article for it already. I don't see the notability beyond being a definition. put a section in another article, not a stand alone article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as failing DICDEF at present, but it's also a topic that deserves expansion way beyond that, to cover the cultural aspects of the male-dominated "brogrammer culture". It's a topic that's getting plenty of outside discussion in the trade press and general media. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a section "brogrammer culture" in Women in computing that doesn't even link to this article. it's not notable within wikipedia let alone in the real world. section yes, article no. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Topic is covered by multiple reliable independent secondary sources, including articles by BusinessWeek and CNN. If there is enough potential for a separate article or if it's better a redirecting/merging (to Women in computing or Sexism in the technology industry), I have no strong opinion on this. Cavarrone 09:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator's rationale. WordSeventeen (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources given are thin, which might mean that it should be merged instead (I haven't gone digging to find more, though, so I can't say for sure), but they discuss the concept in some detail and address it more directly than what I would consider to be a mere dictionary word. It could however use some work so that it reflects what the sources say; it doesn't quite do that right now. ekips39 (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Women in computing#Brogrammer culture as suggested by Borock, for reasons already enumerated above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed in more than just passing in a number of academic works: [3], [4], [5]. The term seems notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 8 April 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.