Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrin 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 Merge and Redirect to List of television show casting changes. --- Glen 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darrin Syndrome

Another WP:OR black hole. If Chuck Cunningham syndrome was nuked, I see no reason this should remain. Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. It's already mentioned to quite an extent in Same Character, Different Actor. --Nishkid64 00:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as pointless WP:OR - it makes admissions that it is Same Character, Different Actor reworked in the article itself. Yomanganitalk 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of television show casting changes --- Deville (Talk) 03:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. Neologism. The content of this page can, and should, exist only on the Bewitched, and Roseanne (TV series) articles. Asa01 04:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The phrase is not in common use, judging from the Google hits, most of which refer either to Wikipedia and its mirrors, or to the Bewitched movie in which the phrase was apparently used. Only 1 Google Groups hit [1]; "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" at least got 12 [2]. --Metropolitan90 06:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 06:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. THIS ARTICLE ALREADY SURVIVED AN AFD NOMINATION NOT ALL THAT LONG AGO. The Chuck Cunningham Syndrome got deleted mainly because it was a never-ending list of original research. Darrin Syndrome is more clearly defined than the Chuck thing. Merging it into the List of television show casting changes is a problem because (1) that's just a list and (2) that article is a dadgum mess. And why discount hits related to the movie? It is not Same Character, Different Actor worked into a different article. It's a specific kind of SCSA. Doczilla 07:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR Computerjoe's talk 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - List of television show casting changes. The term is definitely notable, but the article has been pared down to basically nothing but a mention on Roseanne, and everything else is already covered under the "Same Character, Different actor" section on that page. However, people coming to Wikipedia to search for this will more than likely be typing in "Darrin syndrome," so redirect. Wavy G 14:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, per above. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just don't see the use as a search term, and I don't see much to merge. Erechtheus 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is totally pointless. —Khoikhoi 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of television show casting changes, merging if necessary. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Notable definition, but I don't think it's notable enough for its own article. --Dennis The TIger 01:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per usage. Michael 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect it's a pointless page, cover quited sufficently on the "Same Character, Different Actor" section on the casting changes page. Duggy 1138 06:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge on proviso of providing reliable citation. Cain Mosni 13:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Sandstein 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Redirect, or Merge This is notable and very likely searchable. The other articles seem to have more information, though. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 18:59, 5 September 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.