Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Toby (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Neil ╦ 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save Toby

The nominator's rationale in the first AFD, which closed a year ago ("no consensus"), was as follows:

Delete Website for a man who pretends he will eat his pet rabbit seems to exist primarily to drive Internet discussion. Succeeded in getting a listing in Snopes describing it as a hoax. Alexa says rank 90,757. Google says 70,900, many of which are promotional pages created by the SaveToby folks (such as CafePress pages selling their merchandise, any many blog posting pimping the page). Never achieved meme status. I don't see why Wikipedia should be part of the failed promotional efforts for this not notable website. Uucp 11:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he got it right, but at the time the meme was semi-active and users were able to find articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere. 1.45 years later, in the perspective of hindsight, this seems to be a forgotten meme with no significance and probably no truth behind it. It's time to take another shot at consensus.

I'd appreciate it if someone would add one of those "AFD is not a vote" templates. I think it will be helpful here. Shalom ^Hello 05:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Neutral I think this is pointless. The guy uses the internet to solicit $(hoax or not). This is just like the girl who solicited money for her boob job, or any of the other people who did the same. Corpx 07:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability not as an internet meme (most people just passed it around with a "what the heck?" attitude, so far as I could tell), but provoked real-world responses. Coverage in NBC, Washington Post, New York Post, UK Telegraph. Makes it as "notable hoax". --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The modern equivalent of a circus sideshow, therefore not notable. Greg Grahame 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original nom was right on the money: "Never achieved meme status.". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So much argument and discussion here of whether something "achieved meme status" and only a "rejected" notability guideline WP:MEME for memes. Such a pity. If we resurrected the guideline and achieved consensus, or based it on AFD outcomes, it would save some repetitious arguments here. Edison 15:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Yes, it was covered in multiple independent sources at the time, but it doesn't seem particularly notable now as a hoax, an example of Internet begging, or anything else. Needs to specifically establish the notability of this particular hoax to be kept. Terraxos 21:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As Terraxos says, "it was covered in multiple independent sources at the time." Notability doesn't just go away. It made national television news, and not just as a blurb on a 24-hour-news channel. It's well sourced, it made a splash, and there's no reason that we should delete this notable hoax and slice of internet history that made it into all sorts of major media. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo importance, a website saying this is a hoax does not count as notable, and per nomination. 68.224.239.145 11:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Night Gyr. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:42, 10 July 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.