Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!

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The result was Withdrawn; still feel its better merged, but article has been expanded with many more sources showing it is at least marginally notable. No need to continue the unnecessary inclusionist abuse. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!

Unnotable song. At best a "one hit" wonder. This single was merged per consensus to the main Teletubbies article in November, but Colonel Warden decided to undo the merge without discussion, even violating WP:COPYRIGHT by adding a link to an illegal version of the video on YouTube.Apparently he has decided to help the DisneyVandal by now doing his edits for him. There is nothing else to say about this song beyond what is already here, which is already in the main Teletubbies article. Since the merge has been undone, now bringing here for full deletion with protected redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)de[reply]

Question: Can you provide a pointer to the merge discussion?—Kww(talk) 16:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was initially tagged in September[1]. No objections were raised and the merge took place November 10. Again, no objections were raised. CW only reverted the merge because he saw that I did it while reading my AIV report on another of Bambifan101's socks (by his own admission).[2]. This is silent consensus, as none of the main editors of either article raised any objections during the two months of tagging nor in the nearly two months since it was merged. There was also merge discussion started on at Talk:Teletubbies, but it was lost in the clean up of the sockpuppeters insanity there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was No 1 in the charts for two weeks, that's notability enough. Discussions Re:merges should happen elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting WP:SNOW. Artw (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also congratulations to Colonel Walden on his work improving the article. You are making wikipedia a better place - keep it up! Artw (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No.1 single, clearly passes WP:MUSIC#Songs. Black Kite 18:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep #1 single in the UK = definite notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole thing is properly referenced and WP:MUSIC says charting hits (especially number #1's) are notable. Additionally, this one was shortlisted for another award. And it managed to re-enter the charts with its rereleases. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No brainer #1 hit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I can't endorse the edit-warring, because this article does meet minimum standards, and is clearly warrants at least a redirect. Still, it's one paragraph long, and I don't see any reason to believe it will or should grow larger. Permastubs should be redirected to parent articles.—Kww(talk) 13:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My work on the article has been interrupted by your unhelpful personal attack which required a considered response. My plans for it include commentary on the single's reputation for being outstandingly bad - it seems to regularly show up in polls for this. One might go on to detail its success in differing countries, as the Teletubbies have a significant international audience - USA, China, etc. Then there's its contention for status as the No 1 Christmas single and the scandal of the BBC's reporting it as winning when it actually lost to the Spice Girls. And this is just what I got from perusing Google. I expect a better search of UK newspapers will generate lots more sources to write from. And then there's the music press which is not online - Smash Hits or whatever. There's no reason why this couldn't be a FA. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A considered and reasoned view that an editor using deceitful edit summaries is editing disruptively, brought forth in an appropriate forum such as ANI, cannot reasonably be considered a personal attack.—Kww(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I know this is not a helpful !vote, but even if this article can never be improved to GA level (hence my merge vote), this song is undenyably notable (hence my keep !vote) and if consensus is against a merger, even a well-meaning mergist or deletionist has to accept this. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is one paragraph, and despite CW's claims, its doubtful it will ever be more than the little stub it is now. Its one reason it was merged despite seeming minor notability. (and really, it is minor) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator seems to want to enforce a merge rather than deletion. This is not the correct place for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I specifically said delete then recreate the redirect since some people like helping vandals by doing their edits for them. Nor is SK an option here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your dispute with Colonel Warden appears to be over-personal. Perhaps you should defer from commenting on this AFD due to your involment there. Artw 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your remarks elsewhere, I'd saw the same thing to you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I am not the one fighting a ridiculous wikilawyering rearguard action against a user that has taken perfectly reasonable steps to save an article that is clearly notable. Artw (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With no respect (cause I won't like and pretend such backhanded commentary is respectful), you are the one running around suddenly making personal attacks here and elsewhere for no apparent reason than some irrational and unexplained dislike of me.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fleshed out the article as indicated above. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is now quite a good article, and the song having reached #1 is clearly notable. Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (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.