Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Cunningham syndrome: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:52, 27 July 2006

Revision as of 15:59, 27 July 2006

Line 50:

*'''Comment'''. Even though I have edited the article numerous times, I think it's a stupid article. It would have been okay if it had stopped with the definition of the phenomenon, its ''Happy Days'' history, and a couple of examples. For it to become an endless list of examples seems ridiculous. That said, however, look at its history. A LOT of people have contributed to it and obviously find it interesting and worthy of visiting. Failure to deletee it before a year and a half ago doesn't erase the fact that it has unleashed its own reality. The thing exists. If you delete it, eventually it will just come back. [[User:Wryspy|Wryspy]] 05:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Fonzie Syndrome is a less commonly used term than this, and yet that thing stuck around. [[User:Wryspy|Wryspy]] 05:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep'''. Stop taking yourselves and the web site so seriously. If anyone says "Chuck Cunningham Syndrome", many people, especially Happy Days fans, would know exactly what you're talking about. The content does not violate copyright and is verifiable, as it is used by many others in the internet. So, just leave it alone.

*I strongly agree. This is one of the most (if not ''the'' most) interesting articles I have ever found on Wikipedia. And to the people that say all these examples are original, well, what, are you saying these characters never disappeared on the respective series? Look at how much hard work was put into creating this article.

*'''Comment'''. The phrase wasn't invented at Wikipedia - a [http://groups.google.com/groups?q=chuck.cunningham.syndrome&start=0&scoring=d&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8& USENET search] finds it first in alt.tv.seinfeld in 1997. But then it only finds 12 uses at all, most of them in the last year. The Cunningham disappearance itself rates an entire section in ''What Were They Thinking?: The 100 Dumbest Events In Television History'' (2004) -- thus notable in the context of ''Happy Days'' -- but not the term. It may be TV writer jargon as well as online TV fan jargon, but probably not. I don't think the article as it's constituted is notable. A restructured article, however, might be -- I think this is more interesting than [[Articles for deletion/List of bands named after food]] listcruft. Interesting != important, true. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 07:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. The article itself, the main definition and the reference to Chuck Cunningham I believe should stay, however the page needs significant modifications. It is a pop-culture neologism that does seem to be used in real life, but that real life usage has a sketchy and nebulous definition, and this article should reflect that. What should definitely be deleted is the long list of other shows, all of which can easily be rolled into the specific articles on those shows. There is no meaningful reason why these various character departures are grouped in this way, and this grouping and the inherent decisions about inclusion ''is'' original research. Anyway many entries in the list seem to break some aspect of the criteria of the syndrome as described by the article (eg the character's departure ''is'' briefly mentioned later). Of course that criteria is sketchy because the entire concept cannot be pegged to an concise external real-life definition, so this article cannot contain the multi-examples. [[User:Asa01|Asa01]] 08:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)