Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fonzie syndrome

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 to delete. - brenneman ^{L} 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fonzie Syndrome

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 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 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Aaaayyy... Delete per nom. Also, I'm not sure I buy all of the provided examples. GassyGuy 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete for WP:OR. However I do think this is a genuine phenomenae. I could be persuaded to change my position if verifiable sources were cited (e.g., in each example, a TV critic calling such-and-such a case of this). Scorpiondollprincess 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as above for OR. I would say 3/4 of these don't belong: Andy Sipowicz was one of the two leads from episode one, for example, and Heather Locklear was deliberately hired to be the center of that show. (Also, to be fair, should have been titled the Kookie Syndrome, as that's the original model. Fan-1967 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per my nomination. wikipediatrix 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (wikipediatrix should not be effectively allowed to vote twice in my opinion. PMA 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC))
• Weak Keep - the phrase does exist and is in use (Check groups.google.com), and describes (in my opinion) correctly, the usage and derivation of the term. The violation of WP:OR is signifcantly problematic, and as stated in the nom, coul turn this into a dumping ground of opinion. -- Whpq 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and because it's entirely a matter of opinion and difficult, if not impossible, to verify. Agent 86 17:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless sourced as OR. Groups.google.com is not a reliable source of info. Wickethewok 18:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - As much as i violently disagree with Wikipediatrix's heavy-handedness and tendency for unilateralism, she has a point - although i would say it's a genuine phenomenon not "contrived". PMA 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I believe the term is used offhandedly in Jon Hein's book regarding Kramer, suggesting to me that it existed independently outside of Wikipedia. Someone would have to Nexis the work of most TV critics to really make sure. Also, I would really like it if Wikipediatrix didn't use the same abusive text for all these nominations. It leads me to further doubt her good faith (is it really necessary to stick your own vote in when you made the nomination? That makes it look personal). Although, I admit this is a bit more open-ended and could quarrel with some of the entries (I would never have described Sipowicz, ever, as a supporting character), that's what we have editors and talk pages for. Daniel Case 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing "abusive" about what I said about this article. Sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way for whatever reason. wikipediatrix 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There's everything abusive about it. Using both "contrived" and "made-up" is redundant and unnecessary as they both mean the same thing here (especially when they modify "neologism," which implies the same thing). The only reason to do it is when the writer or speaker feels one word does not adequately convey the depth of their negative feelings, cf. "international world Jewry", as used by antisemites.

      Further, reusing the same text for another nomination suggests some sort of grander agenda (which, to be fair, you've copped to elsewhere).

      I have learned, with deletion nominations, the shorter and more dispassionate, the better. Daniel Case 20:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

      • I agree with Daniel - sooner or later 'trix will end up with an Request for Comment. PMA 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Feel free. wikipediatrix 23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Hasn't SPUI gotten into trouble with that sort of attitude before? Daniel Case 05:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Please consider switching to decaf. I am not on trial here, the article is. If you and PMA have a problem with my alleged attitude, there are avenues you can pursue if you think you have a case, but this isn't the place. Please make an effort to talk about the article instead of talking about me. wikipediatrix 12:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
              • I will leave pursuing those avenues to someone else who wishes to do so. I have better things to do right now.

                As to this being about the article, let me just let everyone know that yesterday I left this proposal for a resolution to this issue on Wikipediatrix's talk page. Despite continuing to post here and on other deletion threads, she has not responded to it since then. If it's about the article and not her, I would think that the discussion could and would have been turned to it. Daniel Case 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

                • Whatever. I nominated the article for deletion and gave my reason for it. I'm done. Keep insulting me if it pleases you. wikipediatrix 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as OR, though I may change my mind if someone verifies it. BryanG^(talk) 23:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And someone did. Keep and rename per below. BryanG^(talk) 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Comment. In regards to Daniel Case's suggestion about a Nexis search, I was actually crazy enough to search for "fonz! syndrome" in the News, All (English, Full Text) database and found a single story, from The Orange County Register. That 2000 story used the term "Fonzie Syndrome" to refer to actors who become identified to a single role that made them famous. I hope this helps. --- danntm ^talk 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• I, too, have tried to find secondary sources that describe the purported syndrome described by this article. Unfortunately, most (of the few) web pages on this subject are like this one in that they cite Wikipedia as their source. (Others turn out to be simple non-GFDL-compliant mirrors of Wikipedia.) The article cites no sources. Editors have argued on Talk:Fonzie syndrome over what the syndrome actually is, but not a single source defining it has been cited on that talk page, and requests for sources for any of this have remained unanswered there. Editors have claimed that this concept existed prior to the Wikipiedia article, but no sources have been presented to demonstrate that. The Orange County Register story (Barry Koltnow. "Shaft, first and forever: Actor Richard Roundtree reprises the role that made him famous in the 1971 action film.", Orange County Register, 2000-07-15.) is, as danntm says, about Richard Roundtree with the reference to Fonzie syndrome apparently being nothing more than about the strong association of certain actors with their most popular rôles. That is nothing like the syndrome discussed in this article. This therefore appears to be original research. Delete. Uncle G 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I defer to UncleG here and accordingly acquiesce in the deletion of this article as presently constituted, or (what I would still prefer) a redirect to Continuity issues with characters in episodic media, as I proposed on Wikipediatrix's talk page. My concerns about her and what I see as her insufficient commitment to civility still stand, however. Daniel Case 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, per Wikipediatrix's own suggestion, can we consider renaming this to Breakout character? I find 9,620 Google hits there, some of which are already in articles here. Daniel Case 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have any sources to cite that describe what a breakout character is? Uncle G 01:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Several pages deep in the Google hits, I find this rant: A "breakout character" from a show is the character that becomes the most popular and talked about, and perhaps imitated. Another one, from the Muppet Wiki: When a character becomes very popular, we call that a breakout character.. This TV critic's usage on his blog suggests rather common use. Here's another implied definition from an article on The Pink Panther: As much as THE PINK PANTHER plays up the sexual hijinks, the accident-prone Clouseau remains the film’s breakout character, easily stealing away the focus of film. A usage related to the Fonz: Ultimately, Winkler molded the character around himself and everybody, including Ron Howard, realized this would be the show's 'breakout' character. Is that enough? I think an article can be created. Daniel Case 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well done with the research! That's the sort of use of Google (to locate actual source material, rather than merely to count hits) that we need editors to do more of. Looking at the sources, you appear to have a fairly verifiable definition of what a breakout character is (albeit that there's probably a better source available than that), and two verifiable instances of breakout characters. That addresses the concern of original research, since now editors and readers can confirm that the concept discussed by the (proposed rewritten) article exists outside of Wikipedia and has gained traction in the world at large. I therefore change to rename and heavily rewrite to be about breakout characters, as per the sources located (and whatever further sources editors locate). You'll have to refactor the introduction quite drastically; and you'll have to start the list of characters from scratch, but you have sources for three (Barney, Fonzie, and Clouseau) already. I strongly recommend requiring that every character in the list be accompanied by a source acknowledging xem to be a breakout character. Uncle G 11:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur with Daniel. PMA 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the excellent research of Uncle G. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Change "vote" to Delete, Rename, or Merge, but do not keep. (If Daniel would work on Continuity issues with characters in episodic media, it would be appreciated.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As if I didn't have enough to do at the moment. OK, I'll get to it, hopefully some time soon. Daniel Case 04:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • OK. I have now created the breakout character article, based on (but not yet citing) what I found above. I have acknowledged in it the Fonz's association with the phenomenon, but since we cannot find much evidence to support the "Fonzie syndrome" referring to this I suggest we just make this a redirect. Daniel Case 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, looking them over, how about a merge instead? I am posting the suggestion at both articles. Daniel Case 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename as per the breakout character suggestion.71.98.184.143 04:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Fonzie syndrome" returns a whopping 60 unique Google hits. - CheNuevara 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to breakout character. I'm assuming this article has been widely edited since it was first nominated. -- NORTH ^talk 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Keep in mind that, as Uncle G notes, entries on this projected article should properly cite sources that specifically refer to each entry as a "breakout character". This will result in a much shorter list than we currently have now, and will make standards for inclusion much tighter and limiting than before. It can't just be another free-for-all where people say "oh, Shaggy's my favorite Scooby-Doo character, I think I'll add him to the list." wikipediatrix 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see anything there that counts as original research, and it's decently well-footnoted in proportion to its length.KASchmidt 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Breakout character, a better term. Remove all uncited examples. -- MisterHand 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, who's making all these Syndromes up?it's not making Wikipedia more credible. Marminnetje 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Breakout character. Yes, who's making up all these Syndromes? Just because one character, one (re)casting situation, or one writing out of a character is odd, noticeable, or notable, why do editors insist on coining a syndrome based on that single event and playing a parlour game to add in supposedly similar events from other shows. Spate of these articles on wikipedia. We'll have to watch out for the multi examples creeping in to Breakout character though. Asa01 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with breakout character; the term is both more neutral and more widespread, per research above; do not keep on its own. Well spotted. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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.