Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Fully original research. Only two "references" are forum posts and open Wikis. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as soon as possible. Blatant ripoff of the TVTropes listing. This is amusing: They link to TVTropes, only to make this listing as TVTropes-esque as aspossible. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per addition of sources. I took my hammer to the list, as it was almost totally unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the article should be made less like a TV Tropes page, not only the concept but the exact name was in use years before TV Tropes was founded. See this article from 1995, for example. Maybe this is not the most significant topic, but it is the kind of pop culture topic Wikipedia can do reasonably well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Fails WP:OR. Given that it has survived Afd once before with the idea that it would "improve" yet no reliable sourcing has appeared, I suggest it has had its grace period. Tropes is where this sort of stuff belongs. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Keep per sourcing found by optimists who thought that sourcing could be found. Well done.  The phenomenon of rapid aging of children on TV shows isn't confined to soap operas.  In fact, it's been the exception, rather than the rule, for a baby to age normally in most prime-time shows of the last 30 years (e.g., Murphy Brown, Family Ties, Family Matters, etc.).  Sourcing may be more difficult to find because of a lack of common name for this TV cliche, but it's discussed in nearly any book about a show upon which this happens, and revisited in entertainment magazines.  As with sports, Wikipedia sets a lower bar when it comes to sourcing, but sourcing can be found for it. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting your point. You seem to be saying "keep" but then your comments indicate you think this is WP:OR. If it lacks a common name, then the "neologism" objection holds. If sourcing "can be found" then that rather optimistic view has yet to be demonstrated. Neither of your arguments bodes well for "keep"; rather what you say are arguments for delete. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right. However, I don't believe that this is incurably OR.  I accept your challenge to find references, and if I don't find any, then you have my permission to delete the article.  Mandsford (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you find references that discuss the effect, not just illustrate instances, please let me know and I will change my vote to keep.Northwestgnome (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep due to new sources which use and explain the expression thus establishing notability by WP rules. Saddly since it is a fun article and informative. However WP's policy forbidding original research needs to be upheld here or else anything anyone observes watching TV could become an article. How about one on characters wearing glasses or not through the years? Or good guys' and bad guys' cars? (On Columbo the bad guys mostly drove Mercedes.) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not think the article is too bad (I removed many of the examples attempting to improve things) but it is probably not notable enough to require its own article. Notable instances will surely be mentioned in the articles on the show in question - if that instance is notable. There's probably no need to invent a name for the situation and then group together various examples. I can't imagine people speculating about the concept and then searching on it in WP to learn about what it is. Format (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The name "Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome" was not invented here; it predates the existence of Wikipedia. I've found reliable sources using the term dating back to 1995, and Usenet citations back to 1993 . Wikipedia only dates back to 2001. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies and great work at improving the article. Format (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep major plot device in the genre, though I am not sure about the proper title.    DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note that some additional references have been added to support the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although it has little or no sourcing, it still explains the continuity/trivia of a character's age, and is therefore relevant. If not kept, then perhaps merged into the soap opera article.W93 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Metropolitan90 is doing a great job sourcing the article; this is definitely a term widely used in TV Guide and soap-related magazines and books. I will jump in to do some further copyediting, but the topic is certainly notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with DGG, it a commonly used plot device in the genre.  D r e a m Focus  06:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a commonly used plot device in soap opera. The article needs improvement, but I've seen sources that could be used to establish notability such as the 2004 book Serial Monogamy: Soap Opera, Lifespan, and the Gendered Politics of Fantasy by Christine Scodari. The book defines Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome and provides examples of instances the plot device is used. Rocksey (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a coined term/phrase, has happened in many a soap opera and is usually exclusive to them, it's been mentioned in various media sources.Raintheone (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2009 (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.