Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Cunningham syndrome

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by COMPFUNK2 (talk | contribs) at 15:59, 27 July 2006 (Adding comment to "Strongly Keep"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Chuck Cunningham syndrome and Chuck Cunningham Syndrome: Lazarus Cunningham

The text and the premise are rampant violations of WP:OR. Since an official set-in-stone definition of this contrived made-up neologism can never be conclusively proven in any legitimate reference work, it's a dumping ground for anyone to insert their own opinions and stick any info they feel might belong there (however tenuously). wikipediatrix 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a second article. - brenneman {L} 06:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Television is a solid fixture in the world today. The information pertaining literally to the original Chuck Cunningham situation is all true. It has only been given a name here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.70.153 (talk)
  • Delete - unsourced opinions -- Whpq 19:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a related article and how the similar problems in it are being addressed, see Fonzie syndrome (AfD discussion). Uncle G 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google search shows 13,000 hits, so it's not a neologism but only 142 are unique. Ifnord 19:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be correct. NCurse work 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to (the, as yet, unwritten) continuity issues with characters in episodic media, if there's anything left after removing unsourced specific shows and characters. ("Unsourced" means that no reliable third party commented on the absence.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this nomination seems to have less to do with the content of the article and more to do with the name it currently sits under. User:wikipediatrix seemed happy to keep the article when she thought it might be renamed. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but after giving it some thought, I've decided that a new title that refers to "continuity issues" is just as much a cruftmagnet and a WP:OR violation, because what constitutes a continuity error is often in the eye of the beholder and a matter of personal opinion. If a new article was to be created that revolved around a similar concept to this one, it would have to find a way to be very specific about what it is supposed to be a list of, and would have to be cited and sourced. Either way, renaming this article solves nothing because the text would still be inherently POV and OR. wikipediatrix 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice of you to have responded here and not on your own talk page, where I first proposed this to you, oh, a week ago. Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you go back deep in Wikipediatrix's contribs, you'll find she was actually a major contributor to the article at one point (early June of this year, about), as well as to all these other articles she's waging a jihad against lately. It seems that with her usual complete lack of tact, she went and deleted whole hog sections without first trying to discuss it on the talk page. This upset people, and they reverted, and she reverted back until she just got tired of it, it seems.

          So, obviously, since the other editors couldn't see what a genius she was, the article needs to be deleted. Clearly within the deletion criteria. Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

          • That appears to be entirely false. I've been through the history of this article, and I find exactly one contribution from User:Wikipediatrix in June 2006 — this one, making the very assertion that this article is original research that xe is making in this deletion nomination, followed by this attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page. Those belie any assertion that xe didn't try to discuss this first. Xyr removal of unsourced material and repeated requests for sources followed that, the next month. Removing unsourced material and insisting upon sources is entirely in accordance with what we should be doing here. Uncle G 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, see this section of the history; I meant July 2006 (sorry). There's quite a bit of editing there.
            • Yes, I do insist on sources and have planted {{citation needed}} on quite a few pages that I otherwise have nothing to do with myself (see Neil Diamond). I also believe that with doing so comes a need for civility (which you have demonstrated quite amply here and elsewhere, I should add). That means you bring up things like this on talk pages (as I did with the Neil Diamond article). It's part of assuming good faith.
            • Wikipediatrix's discussions on the CCS talk page go from what's qualified for inclusion to whether the name is justified (both legitimate questions IMO) and generally seem to favor keeping the article. BlueMoose then more or less dares her to nominate the article for deletion and, without even responding on the talk page, she calls his bluff (at least with the subpages like Lazarus Cunningham, Reverse Cunningham and then here. I think it merited more discussion on the talk page as to why deletion, a rather drastic step IMO, was necessary for an article that had been on Wikipedia for longer than Wikipediatrix herself, and the development of some consensus as to that step.
            • As it is, taking it here strikes me more as akin to responding to a losing chess position by knocking all the pieces off the board. Not behavior we should encourage. Daniel Case 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it needs to be cleaned up quite a bit and have all the entries sourced. This is not beyond the grasp of a few people who are actually willing to do it themselves. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hear hear. Ninety-nine percent of Wikipediatrix's edits are either planting {{citation needed}} or {{unreferenced}} on pages, removing unsourced material and similar things which are a lot easier to do than create original content (or, God forbid, look up sources herself and put them in the article), but tend to start edit wars (and when she does bother to create an article, it's something like Dessarae Bradford whose sources themselves do not always support the assertions made in the article and are of dubious notability (I doubt it will survive its pending deletion vote). If I hadn't made the statements I have already in support of renaming, I would vote strong keep just to deter this kind of counterproductive wikicopping. Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. - CheNuevara 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Well, "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" does seem to be in relatively moderate usage around the interwebternet at least. Its certainly more used than "Fonzie syndrome", though the article on CC syndrome certainly appear to almost entirely original research and cites no reliable sources. If anyone finds that this information can actually be cited with somewhat different content, that would be great though. Wickethewok 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have left a message on the original creator's blog (he hasn't edited here in five months) asking where he got the term from. If it isn't a reliable source then there's no doubt the name isn't encyclopedic (Which of course sets up a conundrum: Suppose we rename it yet the other links keep using the term. Six months or a year from now, if someone proposes to rename it back, will we still be able to make the same argument for not doing so?) Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty well-known term. DJ Clayworth 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite some sources to indicate that it is known outside of the Wikipedia article and the articles on other parts of the World Wide Web that use Wikipedia as their source. Uncle G 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This isn't the first time Daniel Case has chosen to spend more time attacking the nominator (me) rather than discussing the issues. I will continue to generally avoid responding to this desperate technique, and would prefer he direct his attempts at character assassination to my talk page, because last time I checked, his opinion of me is not a deciding factor in an AfD and so his insults and insinuations serve no purpose here. If the consensus finds that the article is a violation of WP:OR - and I say it is - then that will be brought to bear, regardless of anyone's attempts to cast doubt on my motives. (My motives, incidentally, are to curb original research on Wikipedia as per policy. Anyone else got a problem with that, use my talk page.) wikipediatrix 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did (see link above), and was utterly and contemptuously ignored. You're being seriously disingenuous here. Daniel Case 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following section is reposted from the Talk:Chuck Cunningham syndrome page. I believe this research should be finished before we decide what to do with the page. Daniel Case 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. After reading through the deletion discussions on the various subpages, and this, I looked at the history. redfarmer created the page back on December 23, 2004; obviously we should ask him where he heard this term. I doubt that will elicit a reply as he has not edited since last November.

    However, in another sense it doesn't really matter anymore. Standards here were a little more loosely enforced back then (believe me). If he did indeed use Wikipedia to create reality and seed his own term, there is nothing we can do about it over a year and a half later. Whether it came from here or not, it's now out there on Google and is part of the reality Wikipedia must reflect. Renaming this article cannot put that particular genie back in the bottle. We can only all agree to be that much more careful and diligent in the future.

    I therefore submit that this whole debate in this subsection is moot.

  • Daniel Case 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known and recognizable term. If there are citations missing, then be bold and add some. If there appear to be examples given that are nonsense or made up, delete them. 23skidoo 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the nomination and the talk page. The assertion is that this article cannot be sourced, because the whole idea of this syndrome was made up here at Wikipedia a year and a half ago, and any discussion of it in the world at large uses Wikipedia as its source. For your argument that this article be kept to hold water, you must be able to refute the assertion that this article is original research. To do that, please cite sources. Uncle G 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete. Sheesh! Given that the entire issue is of the highest calibre WP:Complete Bollocks - it is an example of a continuity error and nothing else - please can we stamp out this nonsense? Eddie.willers 01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fonzie Syndrome was just kept by default (no consensus). *sigh* -- nae'blis (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I can't believe anyone would argue in this article's defense with a straight face. Everything about it screams original research. Crabapplecove 02:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. 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. Wryspy 05:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Asa01 08:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If these syndrome articles don't get deleted (and they should), I propose we remove the long unnecessary lists of opinionated/subjective examples from each of them, and add some sort of infobox that notes "This is NOT a list" or some such language, hopefully discouraging other editors from turning it back into the cruftmagnet "how many more examples can you think of?" parlor game. wikipediatrix 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it's been asserted by many that I created my own reality on Wikipedia, I did not. In the early television forums on the Internet, frequently questions would be asked like, "What happened to the youngest daughter from Family Matters" or some such question. The short answer was: Chuck Cunningham syndrome. I will be the first to admit that this term hasn't caught on as well as jumping the shark. However, if you look at the early versions of the entry that I edited, they did refer to it as a slang term. I see that since I've become inactive on Wiki, the entry has blossomed into a virtual clone of the jump the shark article. However, the fact that it is now imperfect does not mean it should be deleted. redfarmer 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chuck_Cunningham_syndrome&oldid=66178910"