Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Obvious (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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

From reading the old nomination, and the current article, there are some things to bring up:

1. The Google hits for this term are irrelevant
2. The sources given in the article are not reliable - Wookiepedia and Uncyclopedia are unreliable
3. The embedded picture makes no sense, is misleading even

The subject of the article isn't notable, and has been transwikied to Wiktionary already (although, to be fair, lots of rubbish gets transwikied there anyway) Montchav 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a widespread neologism. --Blanchardb 13:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per above. JJL 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang (wiki not urban-dictionary) and not even particularly deep slang on an etymological basis. There's my word of the day. Epthorn 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - already been transwikied, no use for it here. Otto4711 16:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete — Good for a laugh *cough*Dubya*cough* but not much more, unfortunately. — RJH (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The word can be explained briefly in Wikitionary and "in-depth" analysis was already provided by the other encyclopedia--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not even remotely encyclopedic --Orange Mike 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's a reasonably widespread meme, and a short page is clearly appropriate, although the page could use a cleanup. -lk 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Want to point out that a google search on "Captain Obvious" brings up 424,000 pages, whereas a search on "Captain Subtle" brings up 231 pages. I scanned through the first 50 pages, and it's mostly used in the way described in the article. It's obvious (oww, pun) that it's a widespread meme. Also, fictional characters belong in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. For instance, there is an entry on Peter Rabbit in Wikipedia, but not on Wiktionary -lk 19:54, 9 November 2007

• Keep Widespread meme that could use more explanation than definition. How can you delete Captain Obvious and keep O RLY? Yellowking 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• WP:WAX is not persuasive. The xistence of other articles has no bearing on whether this article should exist. Otto4711 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nonnotable neologism, trivia, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing's changed since the last AfD. --Gwern (contribs) 16:56 9 November 2007 (GMT)

• One thing that's changed is that all of the "weak keep" !votes that were based in part on the possibility of transwiki-ing to Wiktionary. Otto4711 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Improve, don't delete. JonathanFreed 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is not without merit, though the article specifically is short and dense. Maybe a page for parodies of superheros, to include this, Obviousman, the Amazing Helper, etc.? Mindbleach 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs improving, but least it's not Today's Featured Article - LietKynes 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Improvement should be welcome, but deletion is a bit extreme. - Grimitar13:38, 9 November 2007 (EST)
• Keep. Improve the page, but don't delete it. There are many other pages that should go before this one. - Sniggity 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopaedic. —oac old american century ^talk @ 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep Widespread Internet meme, and still growing. dryguy 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful information to non-native speakers of english, or those from outside northamerica where the meme is most pervasive. Widespread neologism. -Kode 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• WP:USEFUL is not persuasive. The information is available at Wiktionary. Otto4711 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Specifically to address the point of number of google results being irrelevant... ordinarily I would agree, but at some point quantity becomes a quality of its own. Here the threshold has clearly been crossed. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 17:09, 10 November 2007 (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.