Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toejam Jawallaby (recount)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 21:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Toejam Jawallaby
With just 26 google hits, what makes this meme worthy of inclusion? Initiated on Usenet in 1985, is Tojam Jawallaby an exception to "the test"? Is this article and others like it a valuable contribution to Wikipedia? --GRider\talk 18:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Comment. Please refer to Votes_for_deletion/Toejam_Jawallaby for the original VfD discussion on this subject.  --GRider\talk 19:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Anything created on usenet would have to be very famous to warrant its own article. The Google score is limp, which suggests that this never got much further than Usenet.  Even a Google Groups usenet search brings a weak 66 results, mostly from the same small handful of people, which shows that even on usenet this didn't get particularly far.  Cruft of the absolute worst kind. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  20:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I remember this VFD the last time it was nominated. The consensus was obviously not clear, so hopefully this time there will be a stronger consensus to delete. That's my vote. Mike H 20:07, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I recall this from rec.music.bluenote c. 1994. I'd argue that some Usenet memes did achivie notability, but I don't see don't see much evidence that references to Toejam Jawallaby ever spread much beyond one newsgroup and the posts and website of the person who concoted him. Unless some evidence is presented otherwise, it seems just an in-joke from within a small audience. Delete -- Infrogmation 20:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, USENET nanocruft. Wyss 01:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 02:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not again. Delete for reasons stated. - Lucky 6.9 08:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; I thought it had been deleted already; I guess it wasn't. Non-notable hoax. Antandrus 04:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)