Talk:Obélix

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Obelix

"One of the protagonists of the comic-book series Asterix." Hardly a dictionary definition to begin with. Equinox ◑ 17:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I would have speedied this. --WikiTiki89 17:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, but in process. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't this word belong to the English vocabulary? I would have assumed that it's famous enough. And its etymology is interesting: I'm not sure (it may be coincidental) but I assume that it originates from obelisk (= dagger), a sign used the same way as the asterisk (*). Lmaltier (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  There are thousands of TV cartoons and comic books that have characters with funny names. I don't believe they have a definition (meaning) other than "name of a person", so they don't fit here. Equinox ◑ 07:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. - -sche (discuss) 08:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, since no CFI-relating reason for deletion was stated, and this single-word entry is useful at least for pronunciation. Asterix is a related entry whose translation table contains what to me appears to be lexicographical information. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  How about 'not idiomatic'? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  WT:CFI#Idiomaticity: "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." "Obelix" has no separate components, and thus its meaning (the character it refers to) cannot be derived from the meaning of separate components. You and I have been over this before a couple of times over the last several years, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. No idiomatic usage claimed. Fame doesn't count.--Dmol (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Dan Polansky votes keep on the basis that no CFI reason for deletion is given. There are several: Conveying meaning, Name of specific entity, and name of a character in a fictional universe. SpinningSpark 00:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Re: "Conveying meaning": If "Obelix" fails to convey meanings, so does "London" or "Casiopeia"; it seems you are denying meaning to proper nouns and ignoring the fact that both CFI and common practice support a broad inclusion of proper names in Wiktionary. "Name of specific entity" is not a reason for deletion; see WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. As for "name of a character in a fictional universe", that could be a reason, in relation to WT:CFI#Fictional_universes, but that is not stated in the nomination, probably since it would lead to RFV rather than RFD nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. There are dozens upon dozens of proper nouns in Tolkien's legendarium that are as rich or even richer in lexical details (not just conlang details- dwarves and wizards and men are given names from attested Germanic languages), but we don't include them. However much you may like the series, and however much you may appreciate their creator's respect for ancient European history, we're still talking about the name of a specific individual in a fictional universe, used only to identify that individual- so it doubly fails CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  How would you know that it fails Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes without RFV? The other thing is that Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes is bad, since it excludes lexicographical material without providing a plausible rationale for how that is a good thing. I do not understand why we would want to include names of obscure villages while excluding e.g. Shellob, Ungoliant and Sauron, complete with pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Spinningspark. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Obélix

There seems to be consensus that Obelix should be deleted. I can't see any reason why the French and Spanish Obélixes should be treated different from the English Obelix. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)