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. east.718 at 09:50, 11/4/2007

Llap Goch[edit]

Llap Goch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Appears to fail WP:N; while Monty Python is obviously notable, and some of their sketches and creations also have independent notability, there is no evidence of specific, non-trivial coverage of this particular meme by independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell Talk 05:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, as the author, I'm naturally inclined toward a "keep", here, but really I'd just like to see the information remain available on Wikipedia. Would it be more appropriate to fold it into the article about the book from whence it came? (Ironically, Llap Goch is much more well-known than the book, but I don't think there's any question the book meets the notability guidelines.)
For what it's worth, I'm a martial artist as well as...well, a lot of other things, actually, and Llap Gogh is second only to Ti Kwan Leep in my experience as the fake martial art of reference. Admittedly, it's a distant second, but it's still out there. What other kinds of sources would you like? It's a Monty Python sketch, so it's unlikely to be in academic journals. Stephen Aquila 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so; if it were notable enough, it would be. "Dead parrot sketch" gets 37 hits in Google Scholar (as well as 59 in Google Books and 768 in NewsBank, the UK newspaper archive) that lead to a number of specific discussions of the topic. These are exactly the sources we're looking for as demonstration of notability, and Llap Goch doesn't turn up in any of them. Gordonofcartoon 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judging the notability of a comedy sketch by the number of scholarly articles it generates strikes me as analogous to judging the notability of a journal article by how often it gets mentioned on SNL. You can do it, of course, but examining them in their natural habitats is probably a better way to gauge their actual relevance. Stephen Aquila 12:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not up on our Monty Python articles, but perhaps information could be folded into a list of Monty Python sketches (we must have some such article). Alternately, in terms of sources, if Llap Goch has been mentioned in martial-arts literature, or had some sort of demonstrable, concrete cultural resonance that we could point to, that would go a long way. MastCell Talk 18:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I've done some digging, and while I've found a number of high-readership blog references and one small-circ. magazine reference, I haven't found any solid print sources of the type that I believe you're looking for. The best solution might be to fold it into the article on the book in which the sketch debuted. Do you think that would be reasonable? Stephen Aquila 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except it wasn't a sketch. A good comparison of what would constitute demonstrable, concrete cultural resonance is the Goodies episode Kung Fu Kapers, which featured the fictional martial art Ecky Thump. That, unlike Llap Goch, was seen by a mass mainstream audience and is still getting newspaper comment and allusion. Gordonofcartoon 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to your assertions about its lack of cultural relevance, a simple Google search demonstrates that the memory of Llap Goch is alive and well in the martial arts community and blogosphere. I personally believe this is sufficient evidence of its continued relevance to public discourse, but IIRC Wikipedia policy is to the contrary. I disagree with this policy, but it's well-settled and this is neither the time nor the place to fight City Hall. Furthermore, the sketch was published in a Monty Python book that sold well, making it (in my opinion) at least as notable as a short television sketch. Stephen Aquila 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit the articles in question, but I don't think there would be a problem, in principle, with covering this in the article on the book. MastCell Talk 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then how about the following solution? I do some research on the most famous sketches in the book (my research thus far has discovered several), then include summaries of those plus this sketch in the book's section and you delete the Llap Goch independent article. Stephen Aquila 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. MastCell Talk 05:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - as long as the weight given and any claims or assessment of importance are based on reliable sources: not blogs, forums, personal webpages and unpublished niche reputation. At the end of the day, it's one page in a book, with no reliable assertions of its importance I can find. Gordonofcartoon 14:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Stephen Aquila 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, if you have no objection, I'll go ahead and close this AfD and delete the Llap Goch article. MastCell Talk 17:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no objection. I maintain my original contention the Llap Goch is worthy of its own Wikipedia article (I would not have created it otherwise), but given the evidentiary and notability rules currently in place I do not believe I can prove that to anyone's satisfaction. If a sea change in those rules takes place, I will reconsider this position, but for the foreseeable future I consider this case lost. Stephen Aquila 22:53, 2 November 2007 (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.
More