Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slesinger representation of the Milne character "Winnie the Pooh"

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. (aeropagitica) 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slesinger representation of the Milne character "Winnie the Pooh"

POV fork from the Winnie the Pooh article JBKramer 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my comment on Eeyore, below. NawlinWiki 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this appears to have been created as a POV fork, but I'd think we could merge it back in without using Afd. Friday (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw without finding. This nomination for deletion is a bald-faced attempt to influence a content dispute and should be speedily closed without finding. Attempting to use AfD to force someone's hand during a dispute is despicable. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Nominating an alleged POV fork for deletion is business-as-usual- is there something you know that you're not sharing that lead you to call this "despicable?" Friday (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:CIVIL No, this nomination for deletion was a bald-faced attempt to get rid of an obvious POV fork, as both NawlinWiki and Friday, users with substantial and good contribution histories have agreed with me about. If you HONESTLY BELIEVE that the article needs to exist, please express that here. Using AFD to enforce the best solution to articles that need to go is righteous - using excitable language like you use above requres me to note that, "your conduct definitely "fanned the flames" rather than calming them. If I had to guess, from examining your conduct, I'd say that you were very emotionally upset because someone altered your preferred version of one of your favorite articles." JBKramer 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I read Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles, it looks like the main article Winnie-the-Pooh may have grown Too Large, and perhaps the Disney related material should be located in a different article ... perhaps The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is an appropriate place? Probably not, but the point is, the Pooh (disambiguation) currently does not point to all of the various Winnie-the-Pooh related articles, such as the one under discussion. --Dennette 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use AfD for content disputes. Simple as that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, sometimes content disputes are over whether or not a given article should exist. Friday (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe Winnie the Pooh is a sufficiently notable character that there is room in Wikipedia for two articles about the subject, one on how he was originally envisioned by A. A. Milne, and then one on how he was later re-invented by Disney. So I'm going to say k33p, and also for the three others below. --Cyde Weys 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... seeing this version of the Winnie the Pooh article leads me to believe there is no reason for a fork. That said, if at some future time the amount of information necessitates a fork, I would urge the forking parties to actually come of with a reasonable name for the article... something like Winnie the Pooh (Disney). If this survives AfD I would urge a move to that namespace as the current title is overly cumbersome.--Isotope23 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Winnie the Pooh (Disney) was already created and merged back, if I am not mistaken. I support the notion of separating out the Disney characters from the A. A. Milne original for this and the other ones below as they are different enough to merit it. The unseperated article was rather muddied up by not keeping the distinctions completely clear in my view. Keep ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fair enough, but it still should be moved to Winnie the Pooh (Disney) if kept. Not to be unWP:CIVIL too the author, but this title is ridiculous.--Isotope23 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Merge relevant info to Winnie the Pooh. wikipediatrix 21:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-helpful fork. Turning this into a redirect would have been preferable to Afd, in my opinion. Friday (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Disney's character is but an interpretation or a subset of the original Milne character, which has been animated. It is not a completely different character. Ohconfucius 06:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Pooh related info to main Winnie the Pooh page. Also suggest a more general article on Slesinger, his career and all of his works (including links to Pooh page).(LazarusJ 06:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as an unhelpful POV fork. Any relevant info can be merged, but this article has to go. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That this is a fork is unquestionable. I'm not certain why this is a POV fork, however. Can anyone explain that? GRBerry 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably just a judgment call, but the article name is a bit odd and the creator said Eeyore is "first and foremost" a Milne character. First, certainly, foremost is more of an opinion. One could argue that far more people know about the cartoons than the original books. Anyway, we're not here to decide which version is best or more important. I don't think anyone is suggesting bad intent on the part of the author tho- I certainly see no reason to assume such. But, there were (or so I thought) subtle indications of "The characters in the books are the real ones, the cartoons are a pale imitation". Of course, one man's POV forking is another man's attempt to correct existing bias. I wouldn't focus too much on the "POV fork" tho- the question is, it is a desirable fork? Friday (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a general rule, any time there's two major ways to look at something, I think we're better off explaining and contrasting both in one article- when you split them, they tend to become "sympathetic point of view" over time instead of neutral. Notice we don't have things like Evolution is a liberal myth and Evolution is scientific and correct. Friday (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have Evolution is a fact ... at least for the time being. :-) --Dennette 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded fork. Pooh has been translated into every language known to man, and animated in slightly different ways in most of them, it's still the same basic character. Same opinion for the other half-dozen Milne/Disney POV forks, below, which, frankly, I think should be the same AFD. Anyone who feels strongly about having votes counted can feel free to copy this there. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:24, 31 August 2006 (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.