Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddybears (TV series)


 * 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 keep. Mackensen (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Teddybears (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:RPRGM and WP:GNG. Couldn't find a single source. User with 5 edits removed PROD yet didn't present evidence this is notable. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find any sources anywhere, definitely fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This show ran for two years on the U.K's 1st or 2nd most popular channel ITV so it must have had good ratings, should pass WP:GNG. wil look for RS.Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note your conditional !vote pending RS which were never presented. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable TV series. All I could find for proof that the show ever existed was its IMDb page and a bunch of clips uploaded to YouTube. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Generic as all heck Teletubbies clone (an ep I found on YouTube even ripped off Bananas in Pajamas dialogue; creatively bankrupt is putting it mildly with this one), but it had a national run on ITV; notability is clinched even if most don't remember it now.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Marginal notability at best, yet no references are provided. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I distinctly remember that this programme generated some controversy when it was found that children were being scared by the bears because they had human eyes (!!). It was certainly mentioned on the news at the time; a cursory search of the BBC News website didn't reveal anything, but the story may have predated the introduction of their full website.  I'll have a look tonight to see if I can find anything online.    Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  12:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything in print either. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Here's the controversial eyes. :) Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best and draft & userfy if needed as there is nothing convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  02:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -this is the kind of case where we aren't going to find much coverage online since it's from before newspapers went digital and I'm guessing none of us can be bothered to go to a newspaper archive to get better sources. But a show with a multi-series run on national TV is clearly going to be notable. WP:TVSERIES criteria for notability says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)" While it does say that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone" its example of a show on a major network that doesn't meet notability is "a national television program...cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage" which doesn't seem to fit this case. Blythwood (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but the fact is no coverage whatsoever can be found for a show that supposedly aired for 3 years. Where is the article content based from? I am baffled at how such a show doesn't even have a TV print listing to back this information.  WP:TVSERIES is simply trumped by a complete lack of sources . Cheers, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your concerns, but it's quite obvious that this is not a hoax. I have removed a section that seemed to have the most issues and was unsourced. In addition, I have found a source: a tie-in book for the series, which was apparently also based on a series by Susanna Gretz (many used books websites show its cover which shows characters from the series). If you look through a search for her on Amazon, you see many others (some apparently not originally tie-ins but many with an 'as seen on TV' tag). Blythwood (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw talk 01:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to close this as delete because the burden of proof had not been met. However, I believe a stronger consensus against WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:Clearly notable has yet to be reached that would keep this out of a 'no consensus' closure. Mkdw talk 01:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very difficult to find any meaningful sources referencing this show. NickCT (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apparently had a complete season and more on national television, and is not a hoax apparently. That's all that is needed; it is going to be notable. do  ncr  am  02:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not "all that is needed". Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED just because it was on television. In fact, at the very top of WP:N it states, "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Mkdw talk 01:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's true that without suitable sources, this might be thought of as a hoax, but, as someone said, this was before newspapers were made digital and finding sources for it is actually gonna be difficult. Maybe someone can get sources of the schedule used by ITV to verify this exact show appeared. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete . Obviously fails WP:GNG. All I could find for proof that this show exists was clips of it on YouTube. And even if it didn't fail GNG, it should be noted that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 20:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Already !voted above. Mkdw talk 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "The Teletubbies are preparing for battle - with a bunch of teddybears. ITV, impressed by the success of the toddlers' show is launching a rival. It will feature five teddies William, Sara, Louise, Robert and Charles, who all wear brightly-coloured furry suits. The Teletubbies' massive success has spawned a hit record and money-spinning videos, books and toys.  Now ITV want a slice of the action.  Although they deny The Teddybears is a direct competitor, there are quite a few similarities.  The bears feast on hot cross buns, honey, pancakes, jelly and icecream, compared to the Teletubbies' favourites tubby toast and tubby tustard  And they sing a 'jolly little ditty' called The Teddybear Song which could one day make the charts like the Teletubbies current number one hit, Say Eh-Oh.  But The Teddybears, based on books by Susanna Gretz and Alison Sage, is aimed at older children. The series starts on January 5."  The article notes: "THE Teddybears, the furry superstars from Children's ITV, are heading for Bristol during the half-term holiday. Fans of the show, one of the most popular pre-school programmes on TV, will be able to meet and greet their favourites at The Mall shopping centre at Cribbs Causeway, on Monday, October 25, from 10am. The Teddybears - Charles, Sara, Louise, Robert and William - have their own dog, Fred, a Dalmatian. They are based on the books by Susanna Gretz and Alison Sage and have become a huge hit with young viewers, taking some 64 per cent of the target audience."  The article notes: "Sam Fryer meets Stokenchurch actress Louise Conran SARA bear is extremely organised. Louise Conran, the 23-year-old who plays her, is not. The Teddybears have been hyped as ITV's answer to the Teletubbies, and, at first glance, their huge, brightly coloured, furry costumes make them look very similar. The Teddybears, however, have been in the hearts and minds of children in this country for nearly 30 years, thanks to the very popular books written by Susanna Gretz and Alison Sage. Louise Conran, from Stokenchurch, is one of the five actors who managed to get inside a coveted Teddybear costume. ... Media coverage of the Teddybears has been intense since the success of the Teletubbies, with comparisons between the two shows prompting newspapers and television shows to beg for interviews. All five Teddybears appeared on Richard and Judy recently. ... Another series of the show might begin filming at the end of the year, depending on the success of this series."  The article notes: "There's a whole raft of new children's shows to look out for at this time of year. Back for a daily 13-part series, and based on the popular books by Susanna Gretz and Alison Sage which have delighted young children for more than 30 years, Teddybears once again features the exploits of five colourful bears and their dog, Fred, as they go about their daily lives at No. 8 Green Street, Bearbridge."  The article notes: "PROVEN Private Equity, the rights and merchandising company that controls the destiny of the TV puppet Sooty, is planning to launch a $150 million (Pounds 93 million) fund in Britain and America this month. Gordon Power, who spun off the business from Guinness Mahon, is believed to be working on the details of one of the largest funds to concentrate on children's TV characters and merchandising rights. Apart from Sooty, ProVen has rights through Link Licensing to characters such as Barbie, the doll that is still going strong after 40 years, and Teddybears, the successful children's series on ITV."</li> <li> The article notes: "Moreover, a children's series, Teddybears, based on a collection of books by Susanna Gretz, will start in January and Link is already developing toys, books and other products connected to it."</li> <li> The article notes: "TEDDYBEARS aren't the only ITV rival to the Teletubbies. Word is LWT are working on the Tele-Tarbies, five chubby little chappies who wander over a lush green golf course in checkered trousers saying 'Ho-ho, is that the one?' There's Tarby, Lynchy, Ronnie, Parky and Brucie."</li> <li> The article notes: "A good introduction to the licensing industry is The A-Z of Licensing, aworkshop led by Claire Derry, managing director of Link Licensing. Derrywill team up a licensee and retailer to guide newcomers through the licensing process from selecting the right partner to avoiding legal pitfalls. Link’s stand will showcase new Barbie fashions, its range of Lord's cricket gifts and Teddybears, the ITV children's series with merchandising links to Harper Collins (books), VCI (videos) and Tex UK (bedding)."</li> <li> The article notes: "London-based Link Entertainment Television has sold the rights to Teddybears to U.S.-based Trio Channel, a new satellite channel broadcast on Direct TV and TCI Hits. Trio's 26 episode purchase comes on the heals of another recent deal for Link with Canada's SCN for all 52 episodes of the lovable bears television adventures."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Teddybears to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Pinging and, who said they would look for sources. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Great work by in finding RS, and improving the article. Confirming my earlier keep vote.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As Atlantic306 says above, the sources found by Cunard (which had eluded me in my search) indicate that the notability criterion for TV programming is met.  Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  13:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.