Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toto (Oz)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. Withdrawn by nom/WP:SNOW keep. Not a snowball's chance in Hell that it will result in a Delete outcome. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toto (Oz)

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Toto (Oz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional dog, secondary (if not tetriary) character from a famous work (but WP:NOTINHERITED. His only claim to fame is being part of the famous quote 'Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore', but that's not enough (and the quote is often used committing reference to him). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The 2001 book I, Toto is about a notable dog actor Terry (dog) who among others portrayed the role of Toto in one movie adaptation, and I was not able to find any evidence the book contains any WP:SIGCOV of Toto, the fictional dog. (it does contain some discussion of Terry's role as Toto, but that's not the same, and belongs in the article about the real dog; again, NOTINHERITED - if a notable actor portrays a certain role, that role does not become notable by the virtue of that fact). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the dog does not have to speak to be famous. he has to be present in key scenes, such as when he gets lost (at start and end of book) and when he pulls of the curtain to reveal the Wizard. Google scholar gives over 18,000 cites to scholarly books and articles with the "not in Kansas Toto" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1,27&q=toto =kansas&btnG= Toto is surely one of the most famous dogs in all of literature. He has his own scholarly studies-- (1) Hsu, "Where’s Oz, Toto? Idealism and the politics of gender and race in academe." Power, race, and gender in academe (2000): 183-204. (2) Barnes, "Toto: The Dog-Gone Amazing Story of the Wizard of Oz." The School Librarian (2018); (3) in Italian: Scrivere E Rappresentare (2017): 165 . (4) "Fictional Faithful Companions." in Faces Oct2016, Vol. 33 Issue 2, p38 features "the most popular television dogs" which are Toto, Snoopy, and Scooby Doo. (5) in USA TIME Magazine (Aug 13, 2015) includes Toto in "The Most Famous Dogs in Movies and Television". (6) in England the Daily Mail (May 30 2020)_ celebrates the Prime Minister's dog who is famous--in the same league as " Scooby Doo, Pluto, Lassie, Snoopy, Mutley, Pongo, Gnasher and Toto". (7) also in England, Neil Oliver. writes in The Sunday Times (June 28 2020) that 2020 "has been a tornado of anxieties....Like Toto, the little dog in The Wizard of Oz, we find ourselves far from home. I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more. Also like Toto, no one understands our small voices. In this incomprehensible new place, we are to be silent while others speak." -- the last point emphasizes how important it is to be a quiet observer.
Toto plays a central role in several critical points: he runs away at the beginning and end of the book and Dorothy changes plans to catch him' he pulls away the curtain to reveal the Wizard is a fake. Scholar Keri Weil analyzes the role:

Toto is the driving force behind Frank Baum’s narrative because it is Dorothy’s love for the dog that leads her to run away and escape the dreary moral landscape of Kansas and its arbiter, Miss Gulch. “It was Toto who made Dorothy laugh and saved her from growing as grey as her surroundings,” wrote Baum in the original version of the story.[1] Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Keri Weil, Thinking Animals: Why Animal Studies Now? (Columbia University Press, 2012) p. 146.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since I am a cat person, I don't want to vote here due to an apparent conflict of interest, but most of the arguments above are of terrible quality. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'd be surprised if it wasn't one of the most famous fictional dogs ever. If any fictional dog article should exist it would probably be this one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But we still need reliable sources to say so... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based mostly on common sense. Toto is clearly a well known fictional character with a huge impact on popular culture. I feel like in cases like this we can get so focused on policy and the details of finding multiple paragraphs of analyses or whatever that we can't see the forest for the trees. I don't see how deleting this article benefits readers or Wikipedia. It feels like a disservice. Rhino131 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article has attracted over 5,000 views in the past month so is clearly valued by our readers. There is evidently enough to write about here to warrant a separate article for this character. NemesisAT (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am in agreement with the posters above, and their reasoning for keeping. Timmccloud (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. That is, Piotrus has indeed found sufficient evidence of notability during his WP:BEFORE work in the form of ISBN 978-1419709838, but has missed the point by suggesting that the title of a real-world book detailing the most famous fictional dog portrayed by the thespian canine in question would not be sufficient to establish notability. That, and per everyone else above noting the other RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think Toto has been more influential in popular culture at large than in the field of literary criticism. Nonetheless I found a few literary articles that discuss him:
Most of what I found was outside of literature and seemed to treat him as so notable it wasn't worth actually talking about him, e.g., two articles about nursing which use him metaphorically as a model for becoming a better nurse (1 2), both of which briefly recap who Toto is but clearly expect readers to already know him. Overall I can see why Toto himself seems unimportant to his main current 'claim to fame' (the "Not in Kansas anymore" quote), but especially if we also consider, e.g., sources that discuss how Toto's role was filmed, I think there is enough coverage and cultural influence for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:37, 12 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toto_(Oz)&oldid=1033897185"