Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargent York 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 of the debate was No consensus, but this defaults to Rename to Darrin Syndrome. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sargent York Syndrome

Another user - User:Dustinroolez - added a prod tag to this article and listed it on AFD, without creating the AFD discussion page. I switched the prod to an afd and created this discussion page as a procedural nomination so that the AFD would be properly formed. As for my opinion on the matter, the only hits are from Wikipedia ... so this may be a hoax ... I vote delete unless someone can show that it isn't. BigDT 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe this article was intended as a hoax, however it is in my opinion a non-notable neologism and one that really is not in common use. Acting roles are played by multiple actors all the time, it has been common for decades, and most audiences can cope with it without too much trouble. I can see this article becoming another horrible list type article where, because the inclusion criteria is vague and cannot be verified, people go in add all their favourite pop-culture items which can then never be deleted because who can say with any authority what should and shouldn't be allowed? User:Dustinroolez created the article himself so if the deletion procedure wasn't properly followed that's probably just an honest mistake. No vote. Format 23:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Surely if the author attempted to list their own article on this page for deletion the article should be tagged {{db-author}}? I will ask the question on Dustinroolez's Talk page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, db-author is only used where the person tagging for deletion is the only editor. It's not appropriate here.--Kchase02 T 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This term gets exactly 4 Google hits, 2 of which are from Wikipedia, and the other 2 of which are the same quotation on the same web site. [1] I assume that the creator of this idea is trying to popularize this concept as being along the lines of Chuck Cunningham syndrome, but this term is not in common use nor do I expect it to become so. (Dick York preceded Dick Sargent on Bewitched, but the names are reversed in order in this article name so as to make a pun on the unrelated film Sergeant York.) Anyway, there is no reason that the characters in the film should be expected to notice a change in actors playing a character, as this article assumes, since the casting change is extra-diegetic. --Metropolitan90 23:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources - appears to be a neologism and made up in school - Peripitus (Talk) 01:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete While I've heard of this once before, I have no reason not to see this as WP:OR. Danny Lilithborne 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Not a common term, like Jump the shark. Fan1967 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I believe this is a valid subject, whether it be named "Sargent York Syndrome" or something else. I've heard it referred to as "Darrin Syndrome" or as something similar. Bear in mind, people on the 'net who are probably likely to use the term are not likely to spell the names correctly (users on movie forums are not exaclty known for great spelling; just a side note), ie: "Darren" is a more common spelling of the name; also "Sargent" is more than likely to be spelled "Sergeant," so a Google search may not be decisive at first glance. Anyway, his college professor taught it, so it must be somewhat verifiable. Just my "two cents." Wavy G 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable neologism in danger of becoming a pointless list-cruft article. The same character being played by different actors in different series/films is not notable, unusal, or interesting. Robin Johnson 11:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject may be notable, but the name isn't. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the situation is certainly notable and discussable, but the term looks to be less well known than I thought. How about changing it to "Darrin Syndrome?" Dustin 22:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• That one fails pretty miserably, too. Fan1967 03:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: A Google search for "Lazarus Cunningham" returns a mere 6 results [2], none of which are related to the subject of the Wikipedia article, with the exeption of the Wikipedia article result itself (#1 result). Wavy G 01:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but there's no article called "Lazarus Cunningham"; it's just a redirect. "Chuck Cunningham Syndrome" returns 88K hits. Fan1967 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article is Chuck Cunningham Syndrome: Lazarus Cunningham; Chuck Cunningham Syndrome itself is a separate article again. The latter especially is an ever expanding, vague fan-list article but I guess is related to a real life term. The former more a neologism. Asa01 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• You're right, and based on the rarity of the term, I'd be inclined to get rid of the Lazarus one. Fan1967 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you get rid of the Lazarus one, someone will add every bit of that back into the original Chuck Cunningham Syndrome article. The Lazarus thing broke off as a separate article to help make the Chuck article better organized. That Chuck article, although it has obviously appealed to a lot of contributors, is an ever-growing mess. It could stand to be whittled down a lot more. Wryspy 06:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename. It should be Darrin Syndrome. People talk about Darrin Syndrome. Recasts on other shows constantly get compared to the Darrin recast. In fact, there are plenty of cultural references to it, like when Becky got recast on Roseanne and the characters talked about the Darrin recast. Doczilla 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not need a specific article. If the article remains we will forever be trimming down an ever-growing list of multiple and only vaguely relevant examples, like what constantly happens on Jumping the Shark; or merely a vague list like Lazarus Cunningham. The recast of Darrin on Bewitched was itself notable, and that can be, and is, mentioned and discussed on the Bewitched page. How many different pages do we need to discuss the same thing? Asa01 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but call it Darrin Syndrome which is what more people call it. Wryspy 06:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename either Darrin Syndrome or another variant. Information in article is useful, only the name is problematic. Rigadoun 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per Rigadoun. Or keep if nothing is more appropriate.--Kchase02 T 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Okay. How do we rename the article? Dustin 19:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• The easiest way is to simply move the relevant page, but don't worry about it for now. When the closing admin determines this AfD's consensus, he or she will undoubtedly take care of it.--Kchase02 T 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, my official vote is Keep but Rename. Dustin 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename J.J. Popplewick 12:15, 19 June 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.