Breitbart cites as source www.thewrap.com web site where it's corroborated, as if it's notable or not I think it fulfills the rules for asking on this web site, but I might be wrong, so it's up for an admin.

If you keep following the links, you find that the makers only manufacture 20 of that toy at the time. The company is just a couple — in other words: two people — that make these toys. I do not know about you but I find that two-digit sales numbers for such a small company does not really make for a notable claim.

Ah, you are right I didn't realize that, I'll vote for closing this question then, thanks for your answer.

Also if you really want to know, send a message to the Etsy account that markets the toys and ask. Ain't no better place to get information than directly from the primary source. :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@MichaelK That sounds like the answer to the question. The claim is 'notable' in that it was made by a site with a substantial readership (many of whom believe what it says); that the article misrepresents double-digit sales as "skyrocketing" means it's misleading, and deserves a debunking answer (not unnotable within the rules of this site, that rule exists to prevent questions like "My mate Dave reckons...")

I'm personally satisfied that it is a notable claim. Breitbart is widely read. We can expect many people will believe what they write. So it is worth confirming or debunking.

Commenters: if you are thinking of posting another prurient or jocular comment about the subject matter, please don't.

@Oddthinking : I think the issue with notability is not because of the source (even if I'm no fan of Breitbart), but because of the lack of interest of the claim. Whether or not a few dozen of an inexpensive item have been sold doesn't seem to be a worthy subject. A bit as if I was asking if it has really been raining in NY the 3rd of June 2014, providing a weather channel link as a source : is that notable enough ? (I've other stupid examples!)

@Evargalo But Breitbart are talking as if those few dozen sales are an eye-opening new craze with "skyrocketing" sales, when actually all that has happened is a dozen or so people bought some novelty. That's the whole point of the question. The fact a claim is false and the answer is boring doesn't invalidate the question: same as if a site claimed there was a monsoon and flooding in NY on 3rd June when actually there was just drizzle. We'd debunk the false claim, with the (boring) truth.

@user568458 : I appreciate that, and we actually have enough matter in MichaelK's comment for an answer. I was just answering Oddthinking's remark. (And the 3rd of June was a big issue because I had forgotten my umbrella on that day.)

@Evargalo: You raise an interesting point, and I am wrestling with it.

There is a gap between the sensationalist headline (dildo sales skyrocketing) and the [alleged; I haven't followed the links] perfunctory truth (a couple of dozen sales). So, I think there is still room for this question. [I am merely reiterating @user568458's comment here.]

But your example question - Did it rain in NY on the 3rd of June? - has got me stymied. It would have a good reference to support that it was a claim. The claim would be read by many people. Most would likely believe it. So, by our rules, it should be valid.

But you are right that it carries a big element of "Oh, who cares?" which is being ignored.

We don't have any rules against such mundaneness that I know about.

I guess we have been protected in the past because if no-one cares about it, no-one will post about it. If someone cares enough to post, we assume there will be many more who also care.

But a troll could post 365 questions about the weather over the past year. If that happened I guess we would quickly come up with an appropriate rule against it.

If you want to get in early, suggest something on meta (but I suggest discussing it here first.)

Note: The question is currently closed. I don't agree with that, but I am not planning to override the community with mod powers.

@Oddthinking : I agree with you. I'm don't know our rules precisely enough to raise such a debate in Meta, but if it happens I'll follow its developments...

Maybe the criteria could be about relevance of the claim for today and for the future. While on the 2nd of June millions of people may have wondered about the whether there would be the next day, no-one will worry about it today, and no-one will in the future.