Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Llama Song (2nd nom)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as it fails WP:V and WP:OR. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Llama Song

The Llama Song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Someone listed this incorrectly, so I'm fixing it for them. This is the second nomination; the first is here. It was deleted as a result of that discussion; then restored on the 8th of May. See the talk about restoring it here. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - This song is very much often heard around my school, as when someone finds a funny video, they make it malware which spread to the whole school. While the song is undeniably odd and seemingly (well, really) without reason, its spawned several parodies, including one found by a friend just today, the beaver song. That, among the others, and the aforementioned fact that its used to cheer workers up, means in my eyes it should be kept. It, at least to me, is encyclopedial in nature, as peple I know found it here first, having heard it and wondered what it was. the previous comment is rather off i think, as it is a certantly a notable song, by a (now) somewhat-notable person. Delete it if you will, but i think that people will continue to restore and rename and rewerk the article, all in the name on human curiosity, i.e. people who look in encyclopeidas, online or otherwise. Or you could simply merge it, making it easier so we don't have to discuss it anymore. :P --Darkƒire Rules All!!! 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable song by a non notable person. Jayden54 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable and as the link above shows it was overwhelmingly decided last march to delete the article. for some bizarre reason no one actually did. b_cubed 18:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No, b cubed, it was deleted last March. It was subsequently restored. Check the logs. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - entry doesn't meet criteria: matter does not qualify for an encyclopaedia. Frankly it looks like self-advertisement. LMB 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was going to say size down and make a brief entry on internet phenomenon, but after reading through it again and seeing that it was deleted before, it's not that notable. Darthgriz98 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The song definitely pervades internet culture, and I hear about it almost every day from everyone around me. Sure, notability is not subjective, but who is going to make a news report about the Llama Song?! (For comparison - when was the last time you read about Peanut Butter Jelly Time in a reliable publication?) At the very least, the Llama Song ought to be merged somewhere, maybe List of internet phenomena. V-Man737 20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you ment to say, "Sure, notability is subjective" rather than "Sure, notability is not subjective". ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The above summary of the history of the article is somewhat incomplete. In fact, the article was first created in November 2004, speedied immediately, recreated in March 2005, put on VfD (since renamed to AfD), deleted, recreated at a different title in October, moved to its current title in December, speedied immediately per CSD G4, and recreated again four days later. My restoration of the previously deleted revisions occurred four months after the latest recreation; I felt that the version at that point was no longer substantially identical to the version the original VfD had been for, and thus no longer qualified as a G4 speedy — and since the article didn't seem to be going away, I saw no reason to keep the old versions deleted. (For a longer summary, see my talk page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is actually a very popular internet movie/phenomenon. Much more notable than some other things. I was deleted in the past when it wasn't as well known. Reywas92TalkSign Here 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This song/animation is a culturally recognized phenomena on par with the Christmas light show video and other such Internet musings. It is used to cheer up co-workers in the office and deserves its notation in WP. If it cannot remain a stand-alone article it should be merged with another of similar relevance. Ventric 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per VMan. Agree completely - who would write about "The Llama Song?" No reliable sourcing available. GassyGuy 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment GASP! You twist my words! <soapbox> What I meant by that is that internet phenomena in general are so esoteric as to avoid the whole concept of "notability" altogether while still deserving mention at Wikipedia. </soapbox> V-Man737 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another 'net meme not covered by reliable sources and in all likelihood not going to be covered by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- Not notable Af648 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep That is "pervades internet culture" is news to me, and depressing news at that. But apparently it does. DGG 07:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article demonstrates its claim that it is an internet phenomenon. It doesn't have sources, neither do other articles in the category.Brendan Alcorn 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good reason to clean out the category, but I'm not sure why it's a reason to ignore this article's lack of sourcing. GassyGuy 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It does. WP:V and WP:OR are non-negotiable policies.--Crossmr 18:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable, third-party sources. —ShadowHalo 12:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -this isnt a third party matter it should stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.189.215.149 (talk • contribs) 17:15, January 6, 2007.
Would you kindly expound on that? It didn't make a whole lot of sense. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:26, 8 January 2007 (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.