This article was nominated fordeletion on 15 April 2009 (UTC). The result ofthe discussion waskeep.

This article was nominated fordeletion on 19 December 2008 (UTC). The result ofthe discussion wasno consensus.

This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

LinguisticsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflinguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. CultureStart‑classLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with theproject-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships SociologyLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. PoliticsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

This article was selected as thearticle for improvement on 7 October 2019 for a period of one week.

It is requested that animage orphotograph ofFrenemy beincluded in this article toimprove its quality. Please replace this template with a more specificmedia request template where possible. TheFree Image Search Tool orOpenverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images onFlickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between9 January 2019 and3 May 2019. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Dneverson. Peer reviewers:Bcmac550.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)21:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Attack in 3 seconds.MrMacMan04:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many are we at. I'm too lazy to look. --CWY2190^TC04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sysops a little slow tonight? They took two minutes to get this protected...too bad it took the vandals 2 and 1/2 minutes to go back on the Tivo to figure out how to spell Frenemy.

BTW, I'm justing messing with the Sysops, you guys to a good job of protecting Colberisms. ---CWY2190^TC04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Semi-Protect doesn't mean its immune from vandals.MrMacMan04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bigColbert fan, and the last time I jumped into a Wikipedia-related edit over the show, I ended up missing the Wørd. I opted to watch the show instead. :)EVula//talk //☯ //04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Stephen Colbert Frenemy is a friend that is also your enemy. (i.e. China) They make our toys but take are jobs.

I think the Colbert reference is perfectly legitimate. I realize that there are vandals that put up complete nonsense, but if it is taken maturely, I think it's a reasonable thing to add. I did my best with it. There are also other references tofrenemy in other pop culture. I've heard it was said in "Sex and the City," for example. There will need to be more research, but these references can be added to the Pop Culture subheading at any time.wesweaver07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've removedIran from the list of "frenemies" of the US. They meet the criteria for enemy (competetive, belligerent, hostile) but not for friend (economic/political relationships, good political ties, similar ideology). --Hojimachong^talk02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we tout Israel as our ally, there exist attacks upon American targets such as during the Lavon Affair and the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty to indicate their frenemy status. —Precedingunsigned comment added by71.102.49.157 (talk)13:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the definition of "Frenemy" to describe diplomatic relationships the US has with a few countries, the 3 countries are mentioned above have a clearly "friend/enemy" relationship with the US government: both free trade agreements and trade deficits, border security and espionage issues, and illegal immigration and human trafficking violations. Iran is more of an enemy, when the government leadership continues to berate US foreign policy Israel is portrayed to have US government support and condemnation for the treatment ofPalestinians living in theIsraeli Occupied Territories. Currently, we are building a physical wall-fence on the border with Mexico. Also we competited for petroleum resources with Russia and China, the "oil shock" of the 2000's was by peak demand by the Chinese's rapidly growing economic development. The Russians are importing oil to the whole world and profited greatly while they are self-sufficient to support itself economically by oil. +71.102.12.55 (talk)06:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest considering this article for deletion. At most the obscure portmanteau "frenemy" should have an entry in Wiktionary, but certainly not in Wikipedia. Plus most of the article is transparently bullshit made up off the top of someone's head.—Precedingunsigned comment added by131.111.213.38 (talk)17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Actually, it violatesWikipedia's policy on neologisms. Recommend replacing article with a rederect tobetrayal (betrayer redirects there as well).Ringbang (talk)20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I third that! This article has no basis for being in an encyclopedia (wiktionary being a _much_ more appropriate place)76.116.5.27 (talk)04:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The term is used often enough by reputable sources (e.g. seehttp://www.google.com/search?q=frenemy+site%3Anpr.org,http://www.google.com/search?q=frenemy+site%3Anytimes.com). As a term, it succinctly describes a fairly routine state that otherwise is difficult to describe. As a common type of relationship, it merits an article - though this one is not well written at the moment.Bagsc (talk)07:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to throw in a little more: 'Frenemy' is used in economics/game theory when opportunities for both cooperation and conflict arise (e.g.http://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/marketing/SEMINARS/Papers/datta.pdf(Please don't cite)). I am sympathetic to theWikipedia:Avoid neologisms argument, as it's not quite as established as the related termrealpolitik, for example.Bagsc (talk)07:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this entry should be deleted from Wikipedia and placed in Wiktionary.—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.189.196.218 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ::::I agree - how does one formally propose that this article be deleted? This belongs, maybe, in Wiktionary, but this "transparent[] bullshit" is really more at home on urbandictionary.comMarritzN (talk)04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of original research going on on this article.58.69.11.24 (talk)05:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the aggressive contamination of Wikipedia by theportmanteau crowd. You are pushing a marginal term and adding no value to the articles you touch.neil.steiner (talk)23:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is definitely a good idea. I've always known these so called "frenemies" by the more ubiquitous word, "flake," and I think everyone else over 15 has as well.76.29.225.81 (talk)15:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Disintermediation" appears here in the definition of "frenemy" and in the context, it appears to mean the same thing as "Cutting Out The Middleman". Strangely, "disintermediation" and "cutting out the middleman" both have 7 syllables. Normally, for a word to be useful, it should be quicker or easier to say than the definition of the word, but in this case the word is not only NOT quicker or easier to say, but it is a word that appears to be made exclusively of prefixes and suffixes with no actual word contained therein. Since the meaning of "Cutting Out The Middleman" is known and obvious, and "Disintermediation" sounds like a joke word from a Monty Python skit, forces the reader to do a look-up, shows up in Wikipedia's editor as misspelled, and appears in the common dictionary only in its banking/reinvestment context, it might be a good idea to not include it in definitions of other words (such as "frenemy") as a replacement for the concept of "cutting out the middleman".

Megalonzerg (talk)19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section seems superfluous. Also, a frenemy does not have to be a hypocrite. The entire section belongs in Wikitionary, not wikipedia, possibly under 'word in other languages.'—Precedingunsigned comment added by72.152.250.13 (talk)21:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the examples seem to come from the Family Channel (or it's American equivalent), and from I've seen with my nieces or when really bored, they are not proper. CTody Martin and Bailey Picket for instance, are very similar and are in a relationship. The only competition is from two very similar, smart, friends, not as enemies. Perry the Platypus and Dr. Doofenshmirtz have the relationship of Bond and his villain, if had the same villain every week, enemies. Enemies who know each other well and get along decently, but they only compete against each other directly, not in a fashion that makes either better.174.112.18.193 (talk)03:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Whovians" cite the relationship between the Doctor and the Master as being "frenemies".—Precedingunsigned comment added by66.227.208.93 (talk)15:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting this page, it should be replaced with information about the movie "Frenemy" that came out in 2009. There is not much information about this movie that is easy to find, not even on IMDB.—Precedingunsigned comment added by69.245.137.79 (talk)03:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2024919 photography ProvidedCHO Promoter Digital Gallery 705.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk)20:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress onTalk:Frenemies (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot06:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can frenemies also be loversInothando (talk)10:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class Linguistics articles
• Low-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles
• Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
• Start-Class culture articles
• Low-importance culture articles
• WikiProject Culture articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Wikipedia former articles for improvement
• Wikipedia requested images