Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Cunningham syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete as original research. This is a tough one, and I'm frankly not completely comfortable closing it at all. But if I shy away from the tough decisions, then I'm not very useful as an admin. If you treat this AfD as a vote, it is clearly no consensus or keep: discounting participants with less than 100 edits, I see nearly twice the number of editors advocating keep vs. delete. I'm making that clear up front so that when this is inevitably brought to deletion review, no one will accuse me of trying to play games with numbers. The problem is that those advocating keep — with the exception of a single commenter, who cited a comment on jumptheshark.com — are not at all responsive to the central claim. Summarizing broadly (and I apologize in advance to anyone who feels I am unfairly paraphrasing their words), three voters say that the articles should stay because they are interesting. Seven say that they have a personal belief that the article is accurate and the term is "well known" or in wide use, but do not provide any verifiable source. One keep comment is a complete nonsequiteur.

The deletion guidelines for administrators say:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, 
avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable 
and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must
determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic
can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

Given that, I am deleting this article because the arguments that it is original research are persuasive. As written, the article is original research along two axes: first, it is original research in the sense that no source is cited that demonstrates that the term was established in common usage outside of Wikipedia. It is also original research in terms of the long list of examples (by which I mean, if Roger Ebert says "Madeleine Kahn disappearing in the Cosby show is an example of "Chuck Cunningham Syndrome", that is not original research, but when a Wikipedia editor makes the same inference, it is.) Nandesuka 00:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

I've added a second article. - brenneman {L} 06:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

l

  • 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 • contribs)
    • But we're not allowed to name things. We only reflect the names others give them. Daniel Case 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • But it has NOT been named here. We have now posted links showing it was named at least as early as 1997. Wryspy 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • No, you haven't. You've posted a link to someone asking whether a character was "a victim of Chuck Cunningham syndrome". The question doesn't explain what "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" actually is in that context. There's no way to know that it is the syndrome described in this article, and it certainly doesn't constitute a source to support the content of this article. Five days ago, I asked for a source that (a) describes what Chuck Cunningham syndrome is in detail and (b) isn't derived from this Wikipedia article. No-one has yet cited any such source. If you have such a source, please cite it. Uncle G 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced opinions -- Whpq 19:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Many of those hits either refer to the Wikipedia article or are outright mirrors of its text. wikipediatrix 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Delete. Thanks to wikipediatrix for pointing that out. Ifnord 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • User:wikipediatrix herself pointed out that Google results are unreliable. On the article's talk page recently a search gathered 24,000 results of which 16,000 were unique. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Then the editor who performed that search should be able to find, amongst those 16,000 results, a source that (a) describes what Chuck Cunningham syndrome is in detail and (b) isn't derived from this Wikipedia article. Please cite a source from the articles that you found. Uncle G 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Further to that point: Excluding the word "Wikipedia" from that search actually makes the problem clearer. Relatively few articles come up in the resulting Google Web search. Looking at them we see the problem. this, this, this, this, this, and this all cite Wikipedia directly as their source; this cites a Wikipedia mirror as its source; and this, this, and this are Wikipedia mirrors that don't contain the word "Wikipedia" on the page. Uncle G 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be correct. NCurse work 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What sources did you use to check it? The request for sources at Talk:Chuck Cunningham syndrome#Neologism has gone unanswered, the article cites no sources, and there don't appear to be any sources except Wikipedia itself. Uncle G 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

          • 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)
            • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • No. You should be insisting upon sources too. Uncle G 00:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I do and I will insist on sources when the lists I'd like to see in support of the Continuity issues with characters in episodic media article, when it exists. But Wikipediatrix seems to believe that attempting to maintain standards even with strict sourcing requirements enforced will be impossible. I know from experience that it is not. It will be a lot of work for some people willing to put it on their watchlists. But it is not impossible. Maybe for drive-by editors, but not for those who have created good original articles. Daniel Case 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. - CheNuevara 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User was Wikipediatrix solicited his vote. Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I didn't. I just asked him to take a look. And FYI, an AfD is not a vote. wikipediatrix 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I think you mean to say "An AfD discussion is not a vote". But whatever ... Yes, technically it is, but what are all these boldface words doing around here then? We don't count votes per se to avoid sockpuppet ballot stuffing, but people clearly state their positions. They walk like ducks and quack like them. Daniel Case 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • He merely alerted me to the presence of this discussion, as commonly occurs on Wikipedia. I hadn't come back to the AfD page since it had been posted, but I probably would have seen it on my own anyway. And I still would have voted delete, because it's still original research, whether or not that user alerted me of it. - CheNuevara 09:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
        • That's a "she". Look at her user page. Daniel Case 02:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • Keep Pretty well-known term. DJ Clayworth 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • 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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment Fonzie Syndrome was just kept by default (no consensus). *sigh* -- nae'blis (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Actually, it didn't. It was entirely superceded by an article on a concept that editors did find sources for. Uncle G 17:25, 31 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. --COMPFUNK2 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You assert that the concept is verifiable. Please cite sources from which editors can verify that this concept exists. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • "the entire concept cannot be pegged to an concise external real-life definition" seems to be a very clear statement that the concept is original research. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • There is exactly zero record of that. There's no mention in any Usenet FAQ document, and no record in Google Groups. Please cite some sources. Uncle G 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • He said "Internet forums". That doesn't necessarily mean Usenet. Daniel Case 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Xe also wrote "early", which does. And xe didn't cite any sources. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's dumb but it exists. Travislangley 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. I found a SOURCE that dates the term back to AT LEAST 1998, so it was not a term made up by the original Wikipedia poster. [1] Wryspy 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I would like to see WP:IAR championed on WP with as much zealotry as all of the other rules. --Proteus71 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:IAR is not a rule, not a policy, not even a guideline. wikipediatrix 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." This is what WP says. What you say contradicts WP. By your own reasoning, we should ignore your statement above since it contradicts WP. --Proteus71 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The rest of us are here to write a verifiable encyclopaedia that is free of original research and that has the NPOV. If your sole argument is that we should ignore the policy against original research, then you have failed to make a case for keeping the article with a resounding thud. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I found the article to be both interesting and useful. I believe making a notation of the criticism or that people question it's validity to be appropriate warning for readers more than outright deletion. I think a lot of emerging pop culture vocabulary, references and what not are in significant usage long before they are they are documented by an "official" source. That is one of the advantages of Wikipedia over slower evolving references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.108.236 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep A legitimate and well known television phenomenon. The term isn't a neologism, it's a recognized TV industry term (a somewhat whimsical one, but jargon can be that way sometimes), and while it could use more documentation and citations, it's certainly within the realm of an encyclopedic topic, not Original Research, and belongs in wikipedia. --Wingsandsword 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please cite some sources, then. Citations have been requested several times, and despite that no source describing this syndrome, that isn't itself derived from the Wikipedia article, has yet been cited. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. I do not object a rename. Sijo Ripa 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has always been one of my favorite TV-related Wikipedia articles, and it would be a shame to let it go. It's a perfectly notable article, and the phenomenon is widespread in pop culture. Wouldn't be against renaming it, but the neologism here IS out there and people know what it means when you say it. (What else would you call it... disappearing character, maybe?) As for the length, maybe it could be split into a base article and a list? You know, having the main article describe the phenomenon and maybe cite a FEW examples, and then list more in a separate "List of..." article? Feel free to strike me down on that. Andy 01:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I had a similar idea, make one article defining all the "syndromes" (Chuck Cunningham, Darrin, Fonzie etc.) and link each one to a seperate list page. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 10:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I hope whoever is keeping score notes that most of the "Keep" people are basically saying the article shoud stay just because they like it, not out of any policy-based concerns. Crabapplecove 01:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of us are saying that it should stay because the phenomenon it illustrates is encyclopedic and we are amenable to renaming. Daniel Case 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed (although I think the name should remain the same). --Anthony Rupert 04:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The charge is that the article is original research. Simply asserting that one thinks that the article "is encyclopaedic" does not refute that charge. Citing sources does. The only person so far in this entire discussion who has cited any sources at all is me, and all of the sources that I could find were based upon Wikipedia. If you want to argue that the article is not original research, please cite sources. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think wikipediatrix is acting in good faith; this article, together with most of Daniel Case's similiar articles, should have the WP:OR (including all lists of examples which cannot be sourced as having a third party refer to as the name of the article (now) or section (after merger)) removed. I'm not convinced that any of this can be sourced, but certainly the lists must be removed. I'm convinced that none of it has yet been sourced in the article. If kept, I'm going to delete the entire list of examples as none of them has a source. (I don't want to do it now, as it might prejudice this AfD.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And why aren't you convinced that the lists have been sourced? What exactly do people have against television-related articles on Wikipedia lately? And yes, I did read WP:OR thoroughly, so my argument isn't due to ignorance on my part. I mean, this article was up for months (maybe even years), and now, all of a sudden, it's being proposed for deletion? As I said before, it's not like these important characters didn't vanish from their respective shows. I am also one of the many people that had heard of the phrase "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" long before I even heard of Wikipedia.

      If anything, maybe the examples could be made into a list on its own page, but as far as deleting them entirely (as well as deleting the main article), I am still strongly opposed to that. --Anthony Rupert 02:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

      • That an article has slid under the radar for a long time does not give it a magic pass that enables it to be free of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you have heard of the syndrome outside of Wikipedia, you should be able to cite sources. Please cite sources. No sources have yet been cited for this syndrome, despite all the editors who are arguing that this is not original research being asked several times to cite some. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. How is any of this original research when all you have to do is be a fan of a particular TV series, watch it regularly, and have a good memory? Wl219 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's original research because there's no evidence that the notion of this syndrome exists independently of Wikipedia, given that the only sources that can be found that discuss it all refer back to this article as their source. There's no evidence that this wasn't simply made up in Wikipedia. The creator has been asked to cite sources, but as yet all that we have are assertions and no sources to give them foundation. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Having the list of shows (where someone - a WP editor - makes a personal decision about what might or might not be a case of CCS) is also original research. I'm happy to have an article if an external source exists and can be referenced. That said, all the content on the article must be sourced, we can't only source the term but then also have the unsourced list of shows. Asa01 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Move/Rename. The article stays, methinks. But the title seems to be Original Research. If a good title can't be thought of, Keep. --Quadraxis 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't rename. The article is about the term. What's to rename? Wryspy 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Possibly rename but definite keep as it has very good relevance and I personally wouldn't judge it to be original research (except maybe the title), on the grounds that it has been demonstrated simply from the list, that it is widespread. - Рэдхот 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh and, I would also support de-merging the list. - Рэдхот 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources: Uncle G, you wrote "The only person so far in this entire discussion who has cited any sources at all is me... there's no evidence that this wasn't simply made up in Wikipedia", and the only thing I can conclude from this is that the only parts of this discussion you have been reading are your own. User:Wryspy has provided a reference from JumptheShark.com in 1998 and User:Dhartung has linked to a USENET search which includes this page from 1997, both of which have been placed in the lead section of the article. I'd say that a source describing and using the phrase that predates the article's creation by seven and a half years is, in fact, evidence. Wouldn't you agree? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And this is the crux of the matter: will WP articles get deleted in spite of evidence that such deletion is not deserved? If so, and if it happens with enough frequency, WP will lose volunteers who will in turn spawn new Wikis. --Proteus71 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I still haven't seen any evidence that this deletion is not deserved. Even if someone else did coin this term in 1997 or 1998, that still doesn't make it notable, and I still don't see how there can be an article that definitively states that such-and-such show is or is not part of this silly concept. That is Original Research in the worst and lamest way. Crabapplecove 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • "I still haven't seen any evidence that this deletion is not deserved." And we have no evidence that you are not a communist. Is this really the kind of logic you meant to use? --Proteus71 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's correct. They are both examples of unproven claims that require proof. Crabapplecove 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • No such evidence has been presented. Please present some. Uncle G 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • What evidence would you need to see in order to change your position? --Proteus71 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I specified that five days ago. Uncle G 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I saw both of those. (Dhartung did not cite the third.) Neither is a source. A set of Google Groups search results isn't a source. And a one-sentence mention that doesn't even explain what it means by "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" isn't a source. A source would tell one what Chuck Cunningham syndrome was. Neither do. Please also read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. Uncle G 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If you saw them both, then why did you write "there's no evidence that this wasn't simply made up in Wikipedia" when it so clearly wasn't? They are both sources. What you mean, in fact, is that neither is a primary source. And the 1997 one is fairly descriptive - "this character has disappeared and the rest of them are acting like he didn't exist" "that's called Chuck Cunningham Syndrome, after the character in Happy Days". It may not be usable as a core foundation for the whole article, but that doesn't mean you should ignore that it exists. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Like I said before, if this article is such an issue, why are people just now complaining about it? With these strong arguments for keeping it, it should tell you right there how important the article is. If you're not interested in the article, don't visit it; simple as that. --Anthony Rupert 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What "strong arguments for keeping it"? Not a single source has been cited, despite 5 days of asking. You haven't cited a source, either, or indeed made any argument that refutes the assertion that this article is original research. Your only argument is "We haven't spotted this until now, so we must keep it." That's not only not a strong argument, it isn't an argument based upon our policies and guidelines at all. Uncle G 23:26, 31 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.