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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchy Frog[edit]

Crunchy Frog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the WP:GNG. It can only be sourced to primary sources or other sources sponsored by the creators, which starts to cross the line into WP:NOTPROMO. Cannot find significant coverage in reliable third party sources, outside of passing mentions. Jontesta (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Monty Python is over 50 years old now and really doesn't need any promotional assistance from Wikipedia. And it gets plenty regardless from our regular use of spam, trout and silly arguments. Anyway, there's plenty of coverage in the numerous books about Python including Monty Python: From the Flying Circus to Spamalot and Monty Python's Flying Circus – An Utterly Complete, Thoroughly Unillustrated, Absolutely Unauthorized Guide to Possibly All the References. And there's naturally lots of spillover. Harry Potter pinched its chocolate frog and cockroach clusters from the sketch and people have actually made these, as documented in Reading Harry Potter and the like. There's also a record label which takes its name from the sketch too. When a topic is so influential, it is not reasonable to delete the original. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a summary to Monty Python sketches (which is a very sad list at this point). I am seeing many mentions in passing but no in-depth coverage/analysis to warrant keeping this as a stand-alone article (but ping me if such sources are found so I can reconsider my vote). PS. After merge, disambiguate the topic between the sketch and the label, or course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and garnish with larks' vomit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newyorkbrad, Har har. Given that WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, how about you append a policy-based rationale to this comment? :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this sort of "episodes and characters" AfD against longstanding articles about iconic shows to be demoralizing and unproductive. The encyclopedia is not bettered by stripping out valued content in this way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew. Also concur with NYB about the value of this sort of AfD -- what's the goal here, to delete an article older than some editors about massively influential popular culture because "I haven't heard of it, and in theory it could be promotional for a show that stopped airing in 1974"? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaticidalprophet, Please, no straw man arguments. Nobody said this should be deleted because one hasn't heard of it, nor that it is promotional. Concern has been raised that there are no sources providing in-depth (non-trivial) coverage of this sketch as required by GNG. And so far we are still waiting for this policy-based critique to be rebutted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew quoted the existence of in-depth non-trivial coverage in reliable published sources, which was why my !vote was 'per' him. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would argue that this actually does meet WP:GNG (if I had paid for an argument). This is one of the favorite sketches from their early days when there was little media coverage of BBC programmes and only DARPA had the internet. It is sufficiently iconic that it only needs passing mentions to conjure up remembrance among many. Houston Chronicle [1] described upcoming performances of "some of their best-loved sketches - including the "dead parrot" and the "crunchy frog" skits from their heyday" and Terry Jones' obit in Rolling Stone [2] invokes it with a simple "in Monty Python’s box of chocolates, he was always the crunchy frog".

But beyond those hat tips for fans, the Chronicle of Higher Education [3] references an academic paper on the difficulty of translating Crunchy Frog sketch to Polish. And in the NY Times on April 18, 1976 [4] (sorry, subscribers only) an entire paragraph is devoted to describing every aspect of the sketch in a detailed story of the Pythons, to highlight why one should avoid buying products in their "nonsense world." LizardJr8 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need to stop the allowance of things just because they are said to be "well known" when there is no actual show of reliable source coverage of the matter. Wikipedia also does not have a grandfather clause, and in the early wild west days of Wikipedia there was no regulation of article creation, so we need to stop allowing length of existence as an argument to keep an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Johnpacklambert. "Well known" is a subjective idea. Wikipedia is based on significant coverage and there are no sources that meet that. Even for the licensed Monty Python guide, Notability has a requirement for independent sources. A merge would be acceptable if there is a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (with or without merge) A google book search for {"Monty Python" -wikipedia} find a pleather of hits a Google book search for {"Crunchy Frog Monty Python" -wikipedia} does not even find a enough to consider as minor mentions. A Google book search for {"Trade Description Act Monty Python" -wikipedia} find lots of hits so possibly a rename to Trade Description Act leaving a redirect. To me it is clear that "Crunchy Frog" is not notable, if the skit is notable the Wikipedia article should be Trade Description Act as supported by references. (which would need to address the redirect to Trade Descriptions Act 1968) Jeepday (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slightly confusing !vote -- it's nominally a delete, but the rationale appears to be that the article has the wrong title ("Trade Description Act" simply being the on-paper name for "the crunchy frog skit"). What merge would be performed? Trade Descriptions Act 1968 is, as you note, on an entirely unrelated topic except for the matter of inspiring the skit's shape. This sounds like a WP:RM-post-AfD matter. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Covered enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is where symantics gets the better of people. Technically is there enough to meet gng? Probably not, as although there is multiple coverage none of it is SIGCOV. However the impact of the sketch cannot be questioned outside of wiki rules as being notable, as per argument provided by the LizardJr8. The problem is that Television coverage in press or books was hardly done prior to the 1980s other than listings, and we are judging evidence based on the modern world. I would argue that if the article is kept it should be changed to Trade Descriptions Act (Crunchy Frog) or Crunchy Frog (Trades Description Act). I have raised this issue on the Wikipedia Notability project on Television.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Grossly inaccurate if not outright false nomination statement. The assertion that the subject "can only be sourced to primary sources or other sources sponsored by the creator" is palpably ridiculous and easily refuted; it's clear that none of the advocates of deletion bothered to do a minimally adequate WP:BEFORE effort. Just clicking on the NYTimes link in the AFD header immediately turns up a relatively lengthy 1976 piece which selects the sketch as a paradigm of Pythonesque humor and sets it out in detail, with comments. A basic Gscholar search turns up dozens of references, ranging from a statistics text to a scholarly book on classical music which describes one of Offenbach's works as "the unwanted crunchy frog in the box of operatic chocolates." Other Gsearches turn up all sorts of places and entities named "Crunchy Frog," all taking the name after the sketch was widely known, in homage to it, clearly demonstrating real-world impact. The several uninformed delete comments serve mainly to show the level of intellectual sloth that pervades AFD these days, an corrosive opposition to knowledge that increasingly damages this encyclopedia day upon day upon day. So, once again, strong keep (and don't frost with glucose! This nonsensical proposal should not be sugarcoated!) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew. ser! (chat to me). 14:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not totally sold on the sources presented, but am running into a lot of paywalls and offline newspaper articles, so I can't say for certain what's out there. Therefore, this is neither a !vote to keep nor delete. (Maybe merging is the best solution.) However, the idea that Monty Python is using Wikipedia to self-promote is patently ridiculous. Monty Python is one of the most well-known comedy groups in the world. They do not need to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, and if Wikipedia did not exist they would not vanish into obscurity. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a seminal skit from a seminal TV show by a seminal comedy troupe. It also was an important cut in one of the Pythons' most popular comedy albums ("Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"). I hope that four weeks from now I'm not met by the "Spring Surprise" that the article has been deleted. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If its cut out of Wikipedia blame the lumberjack. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of the best known Python sketches – it was mentioned by John Cleese as one of his personal favourites when they reunited for a show in 2013 – and it has entered the popular culture. It pops up in a review of John Updike's Witches of Eastwick, was the inspiration for a Danish indie label and has been covered in reference works such as Monty Python's Flying Circus – An Utterly Complete, Thoroughly Unillustrated, Absolutely Unauthorized Guide to Possibly All the References where it's compared to Jonathan Swift's The Lady's Dressing Room (not making that up).-- P-K3 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice one, Porn King. I've added to the article, although there is the ((for|the Danish record label|Crunchy Frog Records)) template at the top already. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge I'm also not sold on the sources. Even the title of the sketch is unsourced (the actual sketch is called "Trade Descriptions Act"). I understand the fandom around Monty Python but there's just not any real coverage to write an article from. My philosophy is to WP:PRESERVE content but I'm disappointed by the bald !votes that I personally believe undermine that mission in the long run. Archrogue (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has provided numerous reliable sources as to the sketch's notability, and if the article itself lacks such citations then surely the solution is to add the citations to the article, not delete the whole thing.

And as for the use of the colloquial name of the sketch in the title, this is perfectly acceptable, and even preferable--after all, the article on the famous painting is called "Whistler's Mother," not "Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1"--and the discussion herein has provided numerous secondary sources referring to the sketch as "Crunchy Frog" (as well as specific record albums that use the colloquial name for such cut).

I think that the Crunchy Frog article can be improved, as is the case for just about every article on Wikipedia, and that the information cited herein provides quite a bit of the material for such improvement. But as for the question being considered here--whether the article's subject matter meets Wikipedia's notability standard--I don't believe that it's a close question, as the cited reliable sources make clear. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title has no relevance to this debate. And whatever the "official" title, Crunchy Frog is the WP:COMMONNAME. I've provided a source above where the co-writer of the sketch (Cleese) refers to it as "crunchy frog."-- P-K3 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware, and thank you for that. My comment was in response to "Even the title of the sketch is unsourced (the actual sketch is called "Trade Descriptions Act")." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, "Trade Description Act", it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AuH2ORepublican I was responding to the same comment, rather than you, note the indentation. P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AuH2ORepublican I was responding to you, as well as to the original comment! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - primarily based on points by Davidstewartharvey and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and others. Plenty of sources (such as NY Times one), listings, real world references.-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (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.