Deletion of Fonzie syndrome

Comment: for . However I do think this is a genuine phenomenae. I could be persuaded to change my position if |verifiable |sources were cited (e.g., in each example, a TV critic calling such-and-such a case of this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: per nom and because it's entirely a matter of opinion and difficult, if not impossible, to |verify
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I believe the term is used offhandedly in Jon Hein's book regarding Kramer, suggesting to me that it existed independently outside of Wikipedia. Someone would have to Nexis the work of most TV critics to really make sure. Also, I would really like it if Wikipediatrix didn't use the same abusive text for all these nominations. It leads me to further doubt her |good faith (is it really necessary to stick your own vote in when you made the nomination? That makes it look personal). Although, I admit this is a bit more open-ended and could quarrel with some of the entries (I would never have described Sipowicz, ever, as a supporting character), that's what we have editors and talk pages for
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)