Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse Cunningham

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. - brenneman {L} 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse 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 reference work, it's a dumping ground for anyone to stick any info they feel might belong there (however tenuously). wikipediatrix 23:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism and WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, 15 unique Ghits, none of which were relevant. Bollocks indeed. -- H·G (words/works) 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Either rename or merge back into the original Chuck Cunningham syndrome article, where no one ever had a problem with it although that article was getting too long. Since this sort of thing happens with TV shows all the time, I think it's relevant and encyclopedic in some way.

I have some good faith problems with this nomination. Wikipediatrix has been engaged in a heated argument on the Chuck Cunningham syndrome talk page, arguing that no one knows what it is (although 13,000 Google hits would seem to demonstrate otherwise) and that therefore it should be renamed (despite no good alternatives being available). Is this nomination just a way of trying to gain some advantage there? There are a few other descendant articles (Lazarus Cunningham) whose titles might need work but don't really fit in to the main CCS article; I don't see though that they merit deletion. I really wonder if Wikipediatrix is trying to get the whole thing deleted; his her rather abusive language (either "contrived" or "made-up" would make the point alone) in the nomination tends to suggest that.

I don't see how this "definition" can never be proven (and how do you "prove" a definition anyway?): A character is suddenly introduced into a TV series without explanation, yet treated as if he or she has always been part of it. Is it any less clear-cut? Any fan of Space:1999 can't argue that's not what happened with Tony Verdeschi, and didn't happen with Maya. Ditto with Sondra Huxtable. I am not familiar with many of the other shows listed, but assuming the information given is correct it meets the definition. I really have no idea what Wikipediatrix is talking about when he she says it would be a dumping ground for any information anyone wants to put there, or even what he she could be talking about.

I really think both of the above editors might want to reconsider their votes. Daniel Case 18:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Wikipediatrix is a "she". My error. Daniel Case 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Your speculation on my motives is not only wrong but unnecessary.
Trying to pre-emptively forestall debate here will not help your argument. I really think you should defer to other editors as to what your motives might be because you cannot be an impartial observer of your own behavior.
I find your lack of good faith disturbing. Daniel Case 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the fundamental WP:OR problem of the article speaks for itself. I have never made it a secret that I oppose all of these articles you speak of, and others like Lazarus Cunningham and Cousin Oliver, all for the same reason: these articles begin with a contrived TV-show-related concept that is based on making an Original Research observation about a TV show, and then, like some sort of a parlor game, readers try and think of TV shows that (supposedly) fit the pattern described by this non-existent "syndrome". Since there can be no true fixed definition of these "syndromes" to turn to in matters of dispute, the article will endlessly be a dumping ground for junk data, opinions, fancruft on a colossal scale, and WP:OR. I'm sorry you say you don't understand what I mean by that, but I've stated it in the plainest English I know. wikipediatrix 18:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
OR shmo-R. The fact that there are or will be potential problems with an article should not deter us from including them if they are notable enough to be discussed among television fans. Articles about individual secondary schools are vandalism magnets; we include them anyway. Daniel Case 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Consider the virtual certainty that if you somehow succeed in getting all these deleted, and win us all over to your side and we never speak of this again, it will be recreated by some well-meaning new editor, and then you'll propose it for deletion again, and then it'll be protected and we look foolish. Daniel Case 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There can indeed be ... we wouldn't have jump the shark by your standards if Jon Hein hadn't written a book and started a website where most of that fancruft can be hashed out (and that's a much more nebulous definition than these, IMO).
Do not insult my intelligence by pompously claiming I don't understand you. I do realize encountering actual counterarguments can be troublesome. If you're upset that this little discussion has increased the likelihood that this will result in "no consensus" and the article will be kept, then I'm sorry. But what you're doing feels far too much like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to me.
Perhaps your energies would be better spent creating websites devoted to these phenomena so that we could have independent sources and better places for the OR. Daniel Case 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


I have just now restored my post after you inserted your own text into my own, which made it difficult for others to discern which comments were mine, since you left floating pieces of my comments unattributed. Please do not alter my discussion page posts. wikipediatrix 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Since I signed all my insertions, I don't see how it was that difficult to distinguish what was mine and what was yours. If you really felt it was that difficult for others to do so, you could have added indications that the post was yours. I responded separately since you raised multiple arguments and I wanted to make it clear what I was responding to so that further dsicussions and comments, especially if others want to add something, do not require jumping around the page and creating confusion.
Needlessly playing the victim does not help your case. Daniel Case 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's stick to the point. I don't see that there is any element of OR to this article - it merely describes a known phenomenon. I can also make no sense of the objection that the definition cannot be "proven" - in fact this is a bit like complaining that there's no OR! The same could be said of any article about non-empirical phenomena (there is no "proof" of a definition of Google_bomb for example, but it's a valid article). It's also quite clear what the term does and doesn't describe, so I don't see how it can be a dumping ground for irrelevant information.

I couldn't rightly say for sure that it's not a neologism though. - do

Who are you? Please sign your post. And in response: Google Bombs have been the subject of hundreds of articles in news media such as Slate, CNN, Wired, MSNBC, etc. Find me a CNN story about "Reverse Cunningham". I dare you. wikipediatrix 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


  • merge with the cunningham article. Marminnetje 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete unless the name is used in WP:RS. Merge content somehow to Chuck Cunningham syndrome without a trace of this name, unless that article should also be deleted (which it should be, IMHO). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or, alternatively, merge with the Cunningham article. I'm not sure how the originator of this RFD defines "original research", but the term "reverse Chuck Cunningham" and/or "Chuck Cunningham syndrom in reverse" appears on number of other reference sites, including answers.com, reference.com, about.com, and jumptheshark.com. Wikipedia is certainly not the first, much less only, place where this type of continuity problem is discussed. Kutulu 04:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with the Cunningham article. If the Chuck Cunningham syndrome is original research, how is it that most of TV-watching Western world knows what it is or understands what the term implies after ten seconds of explanation? And if the Chuck Cunningham syndrome is valid, then what else do call its reverse except Reverse Cunningham syndrome? proteus71 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a connection between original research and a reader's ability to understand something after having it explained to them. I think if I made up a bogus "syndrome" article called Fried Bacon syndrome and applied it to any TV show where characters ate bacon, the average reader would understand that too. But that doesn't mean that my "syndrome" had any validity. Even if my "syndrome" became a popular meme and people started mentioning it in their blogs, that still doesn't make Fried Bacon syndrome any more real. Nor would it automatically infer any validity to anyone who made up Reverse Fried Bacon syndrome one day in school. wikipediatrix 15:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If you created Fried Bacon syndrome and applied it to any TV show where characters ate bacon, you would find three things occuring: your contributions to Wikipedia on the subject would be deleted without discussion, you would find that people looked at you funny whenever you brought it up in conversation, and you would find that people would go out of their way not to talk to you. I don't mean anything personal by this — this is just what happens when you start talking about a topic that those around you do not believe exists. I've seen it happen when someone brings up ghosts, bigfoot, Scientology, etc., in a group that is not even remotely well disposed to these subjects. To make up a syndrome based on a false observation would produce similar results. You cannot spontaneously create a concept on an arbitrary basis and expect the culture to agree with you as if they were sheep. However, if you applied a logical (or at least catchy) name to something that everyone knows exists if only in vague terms, then there is a chance that the name might stick. The Chuck Cunningham Syndrome (CCS) existed as a name & concept before it appeared as an article in Wikipedia to desribe phenomena that likewise existed before Wikipedia. It has at least one major variation, a reversal, with examples found throughout decades of television history. The article on the subject contains none of the chaos that would ensue if a cabal of contributors had faked up a concept and tried to shoe-horn it into Wikipedia through falsification and brute force. Clearly, Reverse CSS exists just as CSS exists. Maybe it's the name that rubs you the wrong way. If you have another way to describe the phenomena in a manner that you think better adheres to WP:NOR, please let us know. I am against this information being deleted, but I am not against it being renamed or rewritten. proteus71 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For this to remain a Wikipedia article, the term "Reverse Cunningham" must actually be used by a WP:RS (unlikely, but not impossible), or very obviously prevalent on the web. (If another term is also used, then a descriptive term might be used for the name of the article, and "Reverse Cunningham" might redirect to it. I don't think this particular term is even used among serial drama fans; but, even if it were, a redirect to CCS or whereever it ends up would be appropriate.) Furthermore, the content of the article (at the time of nomination) consisted primarily of a list of examples, which is clearly WP:OR.
I can see your point for merging. In fact, I think it's a good idea. However, the reason WP:NOR exists is to prevent single, isolated opinions from being represented as fact. Now, consider the case where someone writes a book and claims, "I had a private meeting with the late such-and-such celebrity or political figure. No one else was present." Because of this person's credentials, his or her book gets printed; so, we have what WP considers a reliable source even though we have only the word of the author. Compare that situation to this, where several thousand independent witnesses watch the same TV show and note that some new character is being treated as if he or she had been around from the beginning when this was not the case. How exactly is this original research in the sense that it is an isolated opinion? Are not several thousand independent witnesses better than a single witness, whether or not he or she can get a book published? (And we are talking about independent witnesses, not members of a cabal attempting to rewrite history.)
WP:NOR exists to stop people from writing about controversial subjects as fact or their own personal theories as truth. The "policy in a nutshell" states:
  • Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.
CCS is all over the web. Since RCCS is not, your point to merge the two articles is well taken. However, RCCS is a subtype of an existing concept, so with a little rewriting (calling it "a type of reverse Chuck Cunningham Syndrome", for example), there should be no problem.
  • Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
No position is being advanced, and noting that a TV show has introduced a new character as a previously existing character is merely stating the obvious. It is not taking idea A and idea B and synthesizing them into idea C. Providing an obvious, conspicuous example of a concept does not constitute original thought. I also searched WP:NOR for admonitions against lists or lists of examples and didn't find them. Could you point me to the clause you're referring to?
proteus71 20:30, 25 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.