Talk:The Llama Song

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why was it deleted

can someone tell me why this page was deleted??? i like this song and i was tryin ti find a website on it w/ info!! it cant have just been made up!!! is it part of an actual song or simply just gibberish????!!! please unblock this site!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zac white (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Llama Song and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Llama Song (2nd nom) may answer you concern to a large extent; essentially, when the Llama song receives special mention in a reliable source (like a newspaper or something similar), it will be considered verifiable and notable. V-Man737 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, this is ridiculous. the llama song is an essential part of internet culture, only marginally less significant then Badger Badger Badger, which I notice has not been deleted. The llama song has and will never be reported in a "reliable" source like a newspaper, any more then a japanese newspaper will carry french articles. It's a whole different culture. The llama song is well known to the internet community, and there can be no good reason to reject its inclusion in wikipedia. Please reconsider its deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.157.151 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

That's what I said, only when you think about it, it's more like encouragement to delete the Badger Badger Badger article; precedence doesn't carry a lot of weight in Wikipedia. And, you'd be surprised what news companies report on these days... I know I was. V-Man737 10:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If this article is deleted, then so should every other article concerning internet phenomena and/or fads. If this is insignificant, so are 'Badger, Badger, Badger' and 'Banana Phone'. I agree that there are few to no 'reputable publications' on the topic of the Llama song, but as above it is a display of internet culture which, as a general rule, differs greatly from print. Every reason for keeping the article I can agree with, and every argument against can be applied to other cultural phenomena. Not to mention that I've found at least 4 pages in the last hour alone that link to this page, thus supporting the arguments to re-post it. --Marshmello 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha V-man 737. "essentially, when the Llama song receives special mention in a reliable source (like a newspaper or something similar)" Newpapers are FAR from reliable, they are there for one thing ;to sell themselves. Truth & reliability are pretty low on their list of priorities. Besides that I don't think newspapers are greatly aware of the "Intarweb", instead are happy to focus on the next installment in the life of some vacuous "celebrity". Will this exposure via the newspaper, make the same "celebrity" a worthy candidate for a wiki?

Those are all very good points. Read WP:RS for some background on how Wikipedia deals with this. V-Man737 04:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is insignificant as you say, then how come so many remakes were created? I personally listen to the song quite frequently, as do I some of it's remakes. I was completely shocked when I found the wiki page on it had been deleted. Elemento 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, where were all you guys two months ago? (AfD discussion here) V-Man737 00:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You all know, any one of you could open a deletion review, especially if you can demonstrate the ability to write a properly sourced article on the subject. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please do this then? I agree, deleting this article simply because there are no reputable sources is ridiculous. As 128.189.157.151 said, it's an essential part of internet culture. It's on the internet, and newspapers don't report things just because they're popular on the internet--because let's face it, the people who watch The Llama Song are not (in general) the same kind that would regularly read the newspaper thoroughly, and it's not like The Llama Song would be on the front page, it would be hidden deep inside. In short, the newspaper would have no reason at all to include it. And, here's another example of an internet phenomenon whose article needs heavy revision if you're sticking to this policy: Wikipedia. If you look at article, the first paragraph--all the essential information--is completely unsourced. Now, I understand the need for a reputable source for any questionable fact, or for articles about the Kathenstaller's sparrow or the Esquivician fermentation process, because if there's any question of the subject's existence, there should be a source. However, there is no question that The Llama Song exists, and it deserves at least an article covering as much information as the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.Twilight Realm 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Give me old article?

Could someone give the previous article? (before it was deleted) I just want the parody links. puppy441 - (lvl 80)^On_RS 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ehh, I can't seem to grab the article as it looked before deletion. The video is at Newgrounds, GPrime, and AlbinoBlackSheep, whichever you prefer. V-Man737 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let whoever deleted it know, I came here looking for info about the song (I'm not part of the Wikipedia community) from outside and I wasvery dissappointed to see it removed. Its an "Internet Meme" bro, part of electronic sub-culture. You're not going to see it in the NY Times, but then again how often is the Wikipedia mentioned there either? Should we delete the article on that, followed by the whole encyclopedia? 172.188.140.40 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See the link provided above to the deletion discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is closed, it offers me no means of getting this article "undeleted", which is what I am rooting for. Surely an Encyclopedia need only contain properly sourced info on topics that are of interest to people, rather than be judged against an editors own personal preferences. The complaints on this page illustrate that this topic is indeed of interest to people, its not like the article didnt get any hits. All I saw in that discussion was editors voting to delete because THEY didnt see the merit of the article. 172.188.165.75 10:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to get it undeleted by taking it to deletion review. One thing in your comment I'd like to comment on is where you say, "Surely an Encyclopedia need only contain properly sourced info on topics that are of interest to people," (emphasis mine). One of the problems with the deleted article was that it was not "properly sourced". You probably noticed a lot of people saying it was "non-notable" and that probably contributed to your perception that "editors [were] voting to delete because THEY didnt see the merit of the article". However, if you read the notablility guidelines you will notice that notability on Wikipedia is defined as

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other.

In other words, if an article is "properly sourced" the it is notable. The deleted article was not poperly sourced. It would help your case for getting this undeleted if you could demonstrate that a properly sourced article can be written. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reference

FWIW, this song was mentioned in the Sunday Times (UK): "Mostly, though, we have a less demanding repertoire, such as The Llama Song and My Cat's Got Knees." ("Mum, dad, you drive us nuts; Bank holiday driving", Sunday Times, April 9, 2006, pp. 6. Retrieved on March 6, 2007.) Vashti 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This may make a difference, though I think that's ridiculous. All this confirms is that the thing exists, which was obvious. However, that seems to be why the article was deleted in the first place—there was no proof that it existed. Seriously, this whole debate is pathetic. Twilight Realm 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why won't Wikipedia admins allow it to be recreated?--Matau 01:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably because its more of an Uncyclopedia thing than a Wikipedia thing. What's a shame, though, is that there isn't an Uncyclopedia page on The Llama Song. And I'm too lazy to create it. :-/ --Ekashp 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)