Forum:TC:Winnie-the-Pooh

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Winnie-the-Pooh
This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete. JangFett (Talk) 17:48, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Winnie-the-Pooh (talk - history - links - logs)

This article comes from a quote in Star Wars: Adventures in ABC comparing an Ewok to Winnie-the-Pooh. There are a lot of other real-world references mentioned in the article for the book that we do not have articles on, and I do not see any reason to have an article on Winnie-the-Pooh either.

Delete

  1. As nominator.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 05:43, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
  2. The Grand Poobah! Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 05:44, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Meh. I considered making an argument to keep on the basis that any mention in a canonical book is enough to establish canonicity, but I'm in a Grinch mood right now. —MJ— War Room 05:47, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Tempted to suggest merging this with the "voice actor" Pooh. —Silly Dan (talk) 06:04, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
  5. JangFett (Talk) 13:48, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Seriously Winnie the Pooh that is just dumb even i think that does not belong here. Byzantinefire (Talk) 17:43, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  7. No. Fe Nite (talk) 02:52, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:43, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Trip391 (talk) 17:38, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Jinzler (talk) 15:19, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
  11. 501st dogma(talk) 01:16, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Nah, its not to be taken seriously.Darth Pickle 2 (talk) 01:18, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
  13. I wanted to take a look at this book myself before voting on this to determine whether it's IU or OOU, and I was able to track down a copy here. As our article notes, in addition to Winnie-the-Pooh, the book makes real-world references to Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm, Mexico, and Texas, and I don't think we're going to be creating articles for those, so it only seems reasonable to me to treat its text as not intended to be in-universe. That being said, in response to some of the discussion below, unless I'm mistaken, the book does seem to be the first visual depiction of the Kessel Run, which means we should not shunt it off to the Merchandise Wiki, if for no other reason. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:21, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
  14. Per Toprawa. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:59, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
  15. Per Tope.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 14:23, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
  16. Per Tope Manoof (talk) 11:33, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Per precedent set by Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Portuguese man-o'-war. jSarek (talk) 07:33, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Mentioned by C-3PO In-universe = article. Might as well put Who up for deletion as well. Protectorate (talk) 11:06, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
    • I see no evidence that this is an IU book. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 17:02, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
      • The quote is from C-3PO. Unless there's proof that this book is OOU, then it's IU, and therefore canon, correct? Protectorate (talk) 21:12, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
        • ... aye. But as far as I can tell, this is like a breaking-the-fourth-wall book, where it's IU characters discussing IU things using OOU terminology. Those OOU terms shouldn't get articles, they should at the most be redirects to the wikipedia articles. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 21:36, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
          • Speaking of which, shouldn't the ABC book, as well as the shapes book technically qualify as something to be exported to Merchandise Wiki? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:01, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Bo Shuda (talk) 10:59, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Gee, that's a tough call. On the one hand, we've got a blatant real-life reference, and in an ambiguously canon manner, so we've got that to worry about. Plus, was that ABC's book even canon, anyways? I honestly am not sure how its even that much different than, say, the Star Wars Sticker Books that Darth Pickle 2 uploaded and then got exported to merchandise wiki due to not actually fitting in. On the other hand, we still have the Portugese Man-O-War's earlier tc status and its being canon, plus if the ABC book is indeed canon, we have no other choice but to keep the Winnie-The-Pooh article. This is too confusing, so I'd rather wait until I have more information before I actually vote on this. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 11:02, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
  • Another point to be made: although we have an article for Pooh here, we do not have articles for Kangeroos, Mexico, and Texas, which are all mentioned in that book as well. Thus, we need to make a decision on whether those things should have articles or not. 501st dogma(talk) 21:31, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
    • Personally, I'd prefer soft-redirects to the wikipedia articles. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 21:35, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
      • I would support that as well. 501st dogma(talk) 21:56, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
        • Can someone answer this question: In addition to the question of whether the Winnie-The-Pooh article should be deleted, shouldn't the ABC book, alongside the shapes book, technically be exported to Merchandise Wiki? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:06, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
          • As for the ABC book, only if it is determined to provide no canonical material, which is currently disputed. As for the shapes book, no. —MJ— Training Room 16:37, December 25, 2013 (UTC)