Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Obvious

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. Majorly (Talk) 14:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep - Deprodded. A notable enough expression (335,000 Google results when quoted). - Sikon 08:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are 172 million hits for "even though", which would make it an even more popular phrase. We don't put an article up for the same reason we shouldn't here - there's no encyclopedic content. -Joshuapaquin 06:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep - Lack of sources is a concern, however, this is a very popular term, one used (as a character) in the syndicated comic strip Non Sequitur as well (edit: actually, it's Obviousman, but a clear parody). It is difficult to properly source phrases, so my opinion is to weak keep this one, but clean it up. Wookieepedia is not a RS. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It - I just came to this article to find out what Captain Obvious was - if it had been deleted I wouldn't have found out! I vote for "Keep It" - it's doing nobody any harm existing! ~~MB

If we moved it to Wiktionary, you'd still be able to find out its meaning. But there's no chance that this will ever be a decent-quality article. -Joshuapaquin 06:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or transwiki. It would fit better in wiktionary than wikipedia; it's not encyclopedic and hints of neologism. Deltopia 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly unreferenced OR dictionary definition. Proto::► 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Perhaps appropriate for Wiktionary, but there is zero chance that this article will ever be encyclopedic in nature. -Joshuapaquin 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, not even good for a dictionary. TSO1D 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Wooty. Danny Lilithborne 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Neologism. Anomo 04:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Neologism is not a speedy criterion. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nonencyclopedic term that barely qualifies as a neologism. Doczilla 09:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well known term with lots of opportunity for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My conclusion was the opposite - that there is no opportunity for expansion to encyclopedic status. What do you see as having potential? -Joshuapaquin 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The subject itself. A term this well known and used has plenty of opportunity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or transwiki to wiktionary. Aside from very common usage, Captain obvious is defined in the 2005 print edition of Urban Dictionary, which seems like a reliable source to me.[1] schi ^talk 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This is a well-known term, it's not a neologism. However, there are some concerns about its encyclopedic worth, so this explains my reasoning. --SunStar Net^talk 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I've added a link to a radio show named after Captain Obvious. I'd feel a lot happier if some more media references were found, though. Some sources regarding the history of the term would also be nice. Quack 688 05:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It is just about notable enough... just. Perhaps a Wikitionary is in order? D Marcescu 21:36, 16 December 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.