User talk:LinguistAtLarge/Captain Obvious

Previous iterations of an article on Captain Obvious have been AfD'd in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Obvious (3rd nomination)). A week ago, I ran accross the article on Special:NewPages and started cleaning it up, unaware of its history. While I was busy adding references, the page was speedied for recreation of previously deleted material. The deleting admin userfied the article for me. Since I was already in the process of finding material, sources, and references, I continued. I then let the userfied article sit for a week after which I came back to it with a fresh perspective to review the sources I had added. An objective view of it in my opinion is that the sources are a bit on the weak side (many of the sources use the term, but don't actually talk about the term as the topic of the source, for example). In spite of this, I believe it meets Wikipedia's notability and verification requirements. That being said, if you think I've gone soft in the brain, feel free to slap me with a trout. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• However, half the battle is won, so to speak, because there is an extensive range of sources showing the term in wide, popular usage. I agree that the article is sufficiently improved as to not be a recreation of the one from AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• And feel free to remove the orphan tag, as it does not belong in userspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Here is a dictionary source for you:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=5F-YNZRv-VMC&pg=PA982&dq=%22Captain+Obvious%22

And a news source, more joking:

• http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3278889&page=1

--Apoc2400 (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)