Clarification: delete as promotional. --Connel MacKenzie 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant keep. These are recognizeable icons, like smurfs, Muppets, and Klingons. Perhaps we need to start a page solely for hammering out policy on CFI for proper nouns, since the issue seems to be thorny and all too common of late. --EncycloPetey 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
These damn cartoon bears haven't enterred the English language. Get rif of it, and delete/RFD all in Category:Care Bears, then delete said category --Keene 22:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No objection here to the latter. Are you able to propose any objective criteria for determining whether each name has entered the language or not? I would think Care Bear has, even if the individual Care Bears have not. But without guidelines, that's a subjective opinion. DAVilla 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If they have entered the English language, we should be able to find people using the term outside the specific context without bothering to explain what it means. That is very easy for Care Bear but I believe it is impossible for Kingdom of Caring and the other members of the category. Kappa 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep and define Care Bear (which is a red link at the moment), since that (singular, and not plural) is what two of the quotations mention! — Beobach972 16:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
"A franchise of greeting cards and multiple derivative works of fiction starring Care Bears." Not dictionary material surely, also not a single word; why have this but not Kentucky Fried Chicken for example? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Why not RfV it under WT:BRAND. Slower, but less likely to lead to erroneous exclusion or excess gum-flapping here. DCDuringTALK 21:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete (but note non-brand video gaming term carebear). Equinox◑ 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
RFV would not address two specific CFI issues. Not a word in a language (line 1) not idiomatic (line 3, with the text size I use). Why bother citing it for it to fail RFD at a later date? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
1) I suppose World War II is not a term in a language either? This entry is most certainly English, and it is most certainly composed of words. If your claim is otherwise then it brings not only that point but your entire line of reasoning into question. The very absurdity of the statement gets under my skin.
2) "Idiomatic" is to be interpreted in a broad sense, and we have clearly established rules for terms exactly like this to determine if they are worthy of inclusion. If you do not agree with those rules, then you are entitled to your opinion, but at least acknowledge as much in RFD instead of pretending that you are at liberty to entirely ignore them. DAVilla 10:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as it probably wouldn't pass RFV. DAVilla 06:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)