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 per consensus that the article fails several policies. Davewild (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has gone on long enough. This article makes a mockery of Wikipedia, and reads like the sort of nonsensical entry you'd find on websites like Uncyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Urban Dictionary or even BJAODN when it existed on-wiki, which in my opinion would be a better place for this than the mainspace. First AfD ended in keep, but that was about a year ago, and people were a bit less knowledgable then about what makes an appropriate page and had not been transwikied at that point in time. The second AfD, last month, ended in no consensus, but many people suggested a delete over a keep, and the people in that AfD voting keep in my opinion made very poor arguments for inclusion.

Here's why this article should be deleted:

1. The Google hits for this term are irrelevant, and do not provide reliable sources. Captain Obvious gets less than half of the Google hits for "LOL WUT", and that page is salted. Gets about half of the Google hits for "an hero", and that page is salted too. Google hits are an extremely poor measure of the actual notability of 'internet memes' - internet memes usually violate WP:NFT. Anyone can make something up on 4chan that the community there might grab a hold of, but not everyone can publish it in a reliable source. Occasionally, that happens, like with O RLY and Chocolate Rain. But the overwhelming majority of internet memes are non-notable.

2. The sources given in the article are not reliable - Wookiepedia and Uncyclopedia are unreliable unless used as WP:SPS, which in this case they cannot be. I don't even think any reliable sources exist unless anyone can care to prove otherwise. A lot of this is original research, poor tone of writing.

3. Already transwikied to Wiktionary. It's a dicdef with original research right now, and "Captain Obvious" does not refer to one character in particular - it's a term, not a fictional character, and the article is misleading in that respect.

4. The argument that it's also the name of a non-notable radio show holds no weight. It has a few minor pop culture allusions (sometimes in obscure fandom circles and under variant names, which would not be about the actual subject of this article), but nothing notable enough for an article or reliably sourced.

5. Not really an argument for deletion, but the imageboard post and the list of phrases that may result in the speaker being called Captain Obvious are more Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia.

6. Nothing in the mainspace actually links to this apart from in "See also" sections, except the thing about the non-notable radio show.

So I leave it with you, and if you can suggest how an article that does not violate WP:TRIVIA, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NFT, WP:N and WP:NOT#DICT can be written, then I might reconsider. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Slang dicdef padded out with hopeless trivia (a list of Star Wars quotes, for example). As slang goes, it doesn't have anything remotely approaching the level of cultural importance or verifiability of other slang terms we have valid articles on: Fuck and cunt, for example, have each been the subject of entire books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia not wiktionary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is ridiculous. This article has been up for deletion twice before, the last time just a month ago. The decision both times was to keep. This character is obviously notable, This is a widespread well-known internet Character often used to express sarcasm. There are websites devoted to this character. Do a google on "captain obvious" and you will bring up hundreds of thousands of pages that mention him. Do a similar search on "Major Subtle" and see what you get. There is a Captain Obvious character on Reddit with a major following, there is a Radio show segment named Captain Obvious. This looks like a bad faith nomination designed to subvert the AfD process, the nominator seems to want to keep on nominating for AfD until the page is deleted. --lk (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you provide the article with multiple reliable sources I will change my mind about this nomination - I promise that. It's also problematic because Captain Obvious is not a single character as such, and the article might find itself addressing different topics at once, which would be a mess.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I am acting in good faith - this certainly isn't a bad faith nomination, because the way this stands I don't believe it's an appropriate page for Wikipedia. Assume the assumption of good faith. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi is an example of a bad faith nomination. Or since that was deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you ever seen "LOL WUT" used as the headline of a magazine article? Well, this article is titled "Captain Obvious to the Rescue": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/captain_obvious_to_the_rescue.html This is a serious political news site, not a fly by night blog with a dozen readers. Apparently they think that Captain Obvious is serious and well known enough that their serious mostly conservative readers will understand the context. --lk (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, they thought that their readers wouldn't have the first clue, which is why the first paragraph of that article explains what they were referring to. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about this article then, titled "Thank You, Captain Obvious" on a financial website. the author didn't see any need to explain the title: http://www.safehaven.com/article-2944.htm --lk (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Repeatedly pointing to things that don't explain this subject won't counter arguments that it is unverifiable because no sources exist and thus to document it first in Wikipedia would be original research. Indeed, you'll only reinforce those arguments, by demonstrating that nothing you come up with is actually a source that can be used to build an article. Try finding articles that do explain it, instead. Then you'll have an argument that actually holds some water. Uncle G (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All original research or "in popular culture." Do we really need an article to explain to people what "Captain Obvious" means? Does nobody else see the overwhelming irony?-Wafulz (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is ironic in that sense, but that doesn't have anything to do with its encyclopedic validity. I once considered writing a Wikipedia essay entitled Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not funny, explaining why humour is inappropriate in any Wikipedia article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; every "reference" is simply use of the term, not discussion of its meaning— ergo an encyclopedia article here is original research. Case closed. — Coren ^(talk) 17:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as a crock-pot of original research. What little there is that isn't original research is Wiktionary content, assuming all the sarcastic falsehoods are removed from the article. Chardish (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I decided to approach this as a reader would. I found that the article provided me with no reliable means to check that anything it contained was accurate. The sources cited were either dealing with other subjects, that have their own articles, or were wikis. So I put my editor hat on and went to look for sources. There's nothing. There is no way to support any of the current content of this article, and there's no way to rewrite the article in a verifiable manner. No-one has ever properly documented who or what "Captain Obvious" is, or any of the things about him that this article purports to tell us. There's no reason to believe that any of what the article says is true, and there's no way to write an article that readers can check for themselves against secondary sources written by people with known reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Continual re-nomination is at the very least silly. If this is a good faith nomination, I have to question if this is a good *sense* nomination. All reasons for deletion are invalid, since though they would be good grounds for deletion, if true, are infact wildly inaccurate if not outright false on the facts of the matter. There is no such thing as "level of verifyability". A thing either is verifyable or not. And this thing clearly is. That is a fact. No "levels" about it. The usage in professional wrestling clearly demonstrates the meme has transcended the internet, and as such is way past notable. The google hits by themselves would mean little, but certainly lend support to the widespread nature of the meme, clarifying that the extra-internet references aren't just chance usage outside internet, but are connected. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, if people cite enough reliable sources explaining exactly who or what Captain Obvious is, then I may reconsider. If so many people are agreeing that it should be deleted, than this can hardly be a bad faith nomination like the sort of ones I pointed out above.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To compare with 2 Girls 1 Cup, that is an article about an entity which is unambiguous. "Captain Obvious" however, is loosely defined. It's not even worth a disambiguation page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is already on Wiktionary where it belongs. Malinaccier (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the problem is there are no good references.-Wafulz (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Specifically, it's been about a year since the first AfD, and not a single good reference has been included. If there were any to be found, they would have been. — Coren ^(talk) 08:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are two very good definitions of the term from reliable sources under editorial control. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pure original research dressed up to look like a legitimate article. TTN (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Original research is still research. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. It serves it's purpose for what it is and for that, it is worthy of keep status. --~XHideoNinja (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... except that original research is very specifically forbidden. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem really like an article, perhaps broken beyond repair. Marlith ^T/C 05:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. This hardly seems encyclopaedic. Coldmachine^Talk 10:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't believe this has survived so many AfD's. The points made above should be more than enough. This is not what Wikipedia does. Let's get rid of this before someone sees it. Chromancer (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously not encyclopaedic, obviously WP:OR. RMHED (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just a saying, currently nn. Not every idiom and colloquialism is worthy of an entry.JJL (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.