Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-urination devices in Norwich


 * 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. Evidently considered an important topic by many...  Sandstein  07:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti-urination devices in Norwich

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The vast majority of the page is based on a single published 32 page booklet with the authors own unsubstantiated opinions of what some otherwise unidentified and unrelated features in one particular town might have been for. Other links on the page appear to be very general information and do not directly support the conclusions drawn in the article or leaflet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty_Antar (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is fine, and well-referenced. Rather a silly nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Possible source here re Hamburg and London. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Silly'? Thank heavens we generally demand slightly more evidence to support an article than what looks to be one self-published booklet, otherwise the value of Wikipedia would be nil. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the article, but it is completely reasonable to question its sourcing. If this is just one person's theory, it should not be all stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. —Kusma (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Disclaimer, I'm a Norwich chap, so I'm standing too close to this particular wall. Yes, the article relies heavily on one self-published 32-page pamphlet. That reflects the specificity of the subject: realistically, not many authors will have felt moved to write an article on how not to pee on a wall in Norwich, and publishers may not have viewed the likely sales figures with enthusiasm. Nevertheless, the pamphlet can still be an accurate source, and it's not the sole source; and the article is well-written. Yes, the Eastern Daily Press (which is the leading provincial newspaper for this part of the UK, and well-respected) has called the author of the pamphlet 'quirky', but this requires interpretation: Norwich people are proud of being quirky. The EDP doesn't report on every bit of self-published nonsense, so the fact he got an EDP quote lends weight to the pamphlet's value. I would prefer to see a WP article on anti-urination measures more broadly, in which case this could have been merged - but there is currently no such article. The remaining question is whether the subject is notable: Norwich was, at the relevant time, the second most important city in the UK, so although it's now a provincial backwater, it has historic notability as a venue for anti-urination devices. And urinating over buildings is certainly big enough to be notable. So I reckon, keep, and hope that someone extends it to other destinations. Elemimele (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Examples from London exist. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lviv, Venice, modern versions. Great topic, especially if not restricted to Norwich, even if that used to be the centre of the universe. —Kusma (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and if the theme is broadened to "Measures employed to tackle urination in cities", then Amsterdam's pee-in-a-planter would be relevant, and would strengthen the article. Elemimele (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider broadening the scope beyond Norwich. Anti-urination devices/urine deflectors are notable concepts, but at time of writing those are WP:REDLINKS. TompaDompa (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge to Urine deflector. Article seems well flushed out (so to speak) with plenty of research and references.  Not sure why this was nominated.  Policy?  Meets WP:GNG. — Ched (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC) ce - ty SN and Kusma for the research — Ched (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needs deletion, but let's give the nominator a break. The pamphlet
 * is the central source of the article (and apparently the only source talking about AUDs) and does not count for GNG, as it is (let me find the right TLA) a SPS. —Kusma (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I came here with the expectation—like Johnbod—that this would be a "rather silly nom". However. I see on the talk page that raised the issue of sourcing in December, and was never replied to. A shame, because if they had've been, perhaps we wouldn't be here now. But it's clearly an unreliable source; not only is it self-published (Loveday Publishing), but either Worldcat nor the British library have never heard of it. While SPS are largely not acceptable as sources, it's true that they may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. A retired high school teacher though does not fit the category (in fact his motivation was that he's a little bit cheeky!). Not only is he not an expert, but he also admits that the thing he might be expert on may not actually exist.Since we currently host an article which states something exists when it may well be a figment of someone's imagination just a pet theory of one author, I'd suggest a more thorough analysis of what makes Loveday a reliable source.  ——  Serial  13:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not arguing that anti-urination devices do not exist, simply that this is a subject that needs to be properly sourced and referenced and simply assuming every buttress, stabilising reinforcement or other non-corner is an anti-urination device because that fits your pet theory isn't worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move to Anti-urination device: Not sure why the name of the article is so specific, but anyway it should be able to be expanded. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move to Anti-urination device: Not sure why the name of the article is so specific, but anyway it should be able to be expanded. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, but move to a more general title and expand to cover the concept generally (which, as other !voters have said, does exist). The article as it stands is far too reliant on a self-published source. firefly  ( t · c ) 08:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that has created a Urine deflector page, so it's no longer a red link. This is great. I'm in favour of the Norwich material being merged there. My only worry is whether it would have been better to call it 'anti-urination measures' or something, so as to include those measures that discourage urination in the wrong place by encouraging urination somewhere more useful (like Amsterdam's planters). By the way, this is AfD is absolutely exemplary of WP at its best: by cooperative and well-mannered discussion, we've ended up with a narrow article broadened to something much better, which will also have a better range of more solid references. Elemimele (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It's nice to see the other article but I see no need to merge as yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Meh. Evidentially, at least we know that one of these topics actually existed, rather than being a pet theory. ——  Serial  17:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (or anyone else who thinks this article should not be merged), what are the two GNG sources for "Anti-urination devices in Norwich" (as opposed to "Anti-urination devices" generally)? Levivich 13:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.