Deletion of Crunchy Frog

Comment: I would argue that this actually does meet  (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 https://www.chron.com/news/article/Monty-Python-plans-reunion-show-5003278.php 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 https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-features/monty-python-terry-jones-tribute-rob-sheffield-941521/ invokes it with a simple "in Monty Python’s box of chocolates, he was always the crunchy frog
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)