Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-urination devices in Norwich (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Urine deflector. Seddon talk 21:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Anti-urination devices in Norwich
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

(Not sure how I got stuck with this weird thing, but here goes.) This topic comes off a previous deletion discussion two months ago, where the general tenor seemed to be "weak specific material but there's a broader topic here, keep and edit". Well, editing was carried out; the broader article now exists at urine deflector. This present article was pruned of irrelevant and background material by, and , leaving us with the only bit relating to Norwich: that single report about a local historian's theory. This cannot sustain an article. My redirecting to urine deflector didn't stick, and the subsequent move to " Theoretical anti-urination devices in Norwich" (undone) is clearly a non-solution that only highlights the weakness of the sourcing. Unless there are well-founded reasons to object to the removal of window-dressing carried out by the above editors (and I don't think there's anything to fault there), the remaining single-sourced stub should be either deleted or, if the history is to be preserved, turned into a redirect with history. It's untenable in its current form.

I would be obliged if we could skip the demands for procedural closure because of too-recent previous AfD etc. Editing has happened, the result needs to be dealt with. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * As much as I admire the editor responsible for the article, it was a lot of (very well written) synthesis from the get-go. When you prune that down, there just isn't much left except for that one not-peer reviewed publication, and some local news coverage of it. So yeah, I support deletion. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remind me, regarding this edit does the self-published author have any reputation for reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What a mess. How are we meant to evaluate whether this article should be kept if it's been reduced to one line?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? We don't evaluate the notability of a topic based on the state of the article. I forget the link but that's AfD 101. Levivich 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's generally considered bad form to gut an article of all its content and then nominate it for deletion, that's the only point I was making. The obvious solution is to just redirect it to Urine deflector but as that's been reverted, here we are, I guess.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - to quote from the last AfD about whether the source was WP:EXPERTSPS:  At this point a number of editors have searched, and the only RS is a local news source reporting on the theory laid out by a retired teacher in a 32-page self-published pamphlet. This is not enough to establish notability under WP:N, which requires multiple sources (among other requirements). Colleagues, please don't forget we are here to build an encyclopedia, not play some kind of procedural game. Let's all just step back and reflect on the basic truth that none of us think Wikipedia should have an article about one guy's theory that was reported by the local news one time. That is very obviously below any rational conception of notability. The only question any of us should be asking is: is there a second RS about this? If the answer is "not that we can find", then we must delete this article. Levivich 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I am one of at least three editors who redirected the article; in each instance, the redirect was reverted by an IP (different IP with very different geolocation each time, none in Norwich). I find this suspect because none of the IPs edited the article before and no IP editor participated in the first AFD, yet whoever is editing from these IPs apparently has a strong knowledge of the nuance of AFD procedure (based on their edit summaries). I don't believe there are three or four IP editors in the world with a strong knowledge of deletion procedure who never edited this article or participated in the AFD but are willing to revert a post-AfD redirect. IP editors don't have watchlists right? How are they even aware of the redirects? They're checking this article multiple times? I don't buy it. I suspect logged-out editing and/or trolling. Levivich 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because we already have a redirect called "Anti-urination device" that redirects to the article "Urine deflector," I don't see the point of having the redirect "Anti-urination devices in Norwich". Anyone typing in "Anti-urination devices in Norwich" will get to "Anti-urination device" before they type in "in Norwich," and any backlinks can easily be updated (tho there don't appear to be any in mainspace). Or to put it another way, because we already have the redirect "Anti-urination device", the redirect "Anti-urination devices in Norwich" would not survive WP:RFD. Levivich 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It might survive WP:RfD, seeing as there are incoming links (see below). TompaDompa (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect and PROTECT the redirect Obviously! Now please stop wasting my time. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are the four redirections and the corresponding IP reverts:
 * Redirected at 01:32, 22 July 2021 by with edit summary (redirect to Anti-urination device - there are no sources in this article about anti-urination devices in Norwich any longer - I see no content to merge)
 * Reverted at 16:35, 25 July 2021 by 107.77.203.50 with edit summary (We just had a discussion on this and it closed as keep, not redirect or no consensus, either appeal at drv, or respect the outcome for 6 months)
 * Redirected at 13:16, 28 July 2021 by with edit summary (Undid revision 1035429453 by 107.77.203.50 (talk) this article fails WP:V)
 * Reverted at 19:49, 31 July 2021 by 173.3.250.213 with edit summary (If someone thinks an article fails WP:V and should be deleted or redirected it is discussed at afd. We just had the discusion and the community strongly disagreed with you, so stop trying to supervote redirect just because the afd did not go your way, and edit-warring against consensus is poor form. You may always appeal at drv, or clean up the article so that it meets WP:V in your opinion too.)
 * Redirected at 01:38, 6 August 2021 by with edit summary (this whole thing is ridiculous: it's based on a local newspaper article about a 32-page booklet self-published by some dude.)
 * Reverted at 00:35, 14 August 2021 by 146.168.203.51 with edit summary (Once again, when a redirect has been challenged you must use afd. Edit-warring in a redirect is unacceptable, since this was just at afd you have three options 1-help implement the close (clean up the article) 2-appeal the close (at drv not by edit-warring) 3-walk away)
 * Redirected at 19:05, 26 August 2021 by with edit summary (pointless to keep in its current form - we do not have articles on single individuals' private theories. The piecewise removals of unsourced text, unrtelated text, and unrelated sources in the last few days seem entirely well justified, and if this is the result, it can't stay. Redirecting to Urine deflector)
 * Reverted at 01:13, 31 August 2021 by 156.98.51.156 with edit summary (Undid revision 1040801130 by Elmidae (talk) when a redirect has been challenged you must use afd edit-warring in a redirect is unacceptable, since this was just at afd you can either, help implement the close, challenge the close (at drv) or walk away)

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to urine deflector, doesn't need a separate article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to urine deflector, as per above. Not enough sourcing for an independent article. While article content does not determine notability, there isn't enough content in reliable, independent sources to meet GNG for a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to delete as 1. the article is an WP:ORPHAN so it isn't necessary for navigation 2. It isn't a reasonable search term on Wikipedia as it's too specific (the reasonable search term would be "anti-urination devices"). 3. There's no content in the article to be merged nor any reason to preserve the article's history. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I really don't understand why non-notable, fictional facilities in Norwich should be redirected to something that is notable non-fiction? Mighty Antar (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  20:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect and if the IP editor who's causing confusion feels cheesed-off, get them to put the EDP reference to the bloke who described the Norwich urine-deflectors in Urine deflector. Currently I'm also a bit cheesed off: I thought we'd got all this sorted after the first AfD debate, and the new urine deflector article would completely supplant the Norwich article, extending it to cities at large. But we're now in the situation of a rubbish, one-line Norwich article that mentions the existence of the deflectors but lacks all the genuine information of the original deleted article, but a new general urine-deflectors article that also lacks any mention of the Norwich idea. I can understand the latter: we focussed on the bloke's cheeky personality and self-published booklet, which aren't the stuff of WP. If we'd focussed on the fact a well-respected local newspaper with expertise on Norwich gave him page-space, we could just about justify getting a one-line mention of his work (and maybe one of the pics) into the general Urine-deflectors article, where it wouldn't look out of place. That's honestly the best outcome the IP editor can hope for (I am guessing that this is an outburst of Norwichism; I live here, we've been thumbing our nose at the rest of the universe for centuries and have no intention of stopping now; or maybe someone is trying to prove that WP-AfD can't organise a piss-up in a regional city?). Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'll ask a very simple question but for the benefit of those who'd rather overlook this I will elaborate. Why is there so much emphasis on creating a redirect for this crap? I have nothing against Norwich, it's many fascinating delights and I have nothing against the concept of a Urine deflector or anti-urination measures. Urine-repellent paint is a real thing. That a local newspaper has published an amusing local story about a quirky local pamphlet is about as notable as if it published a story about the towns skateboarding dog. For reasons of amusement, a fiction has been conjured up by somebody, somewhere that every sloping surface below head height of an architectural nature is obviously a secret urine deflector, the idea that somehow, someway we must defend our buildings against this unmentionable attacker, but nobody must know has taken root. That vent on the side of the Bank of England is an absolutely perfect example. Herbert Baker designed this very expensive and prestigious edifice with dozens of corners and perfect little niches, absolutely wonderful spots I should imagine for urinating if one was to be so inclined, why on earth then did he waste good money sticking a urine deflector in only one corner? Could he not conceive that having been defeated thus, a drunken man stumbling home would move a foot to the right or left or use some other location on this massive site? The whole subject would be really laughable if there didn't seem to be rather a lot of time and effort being made in defending such arrant nonsense. There is a whole wealth of reference material on Georgian and Victorian toilet habits, public sanitation, hygiene improvements, urinary practices, architecture et al. and yet for reasons I find difficult to fathom, some people have convinced themselves that such a scandal might be attached to these devices that they have had to be placed in secret around our public buildings to protect our delicate sensitivities. Now stop wasting time on debating the minutia of unrelated wikipedia protocols and delete this thing! Mighty Antar (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:MERGEDELETE. If some of the former content has been merged into the urine deflector article, then we need to preserve this article's edit history. Leaving it as a redirect is the easiest solution. Mlb96 (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect, I guess, since the former article is basically gone to begin with. jp×g 23:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The former content has not been merged with urine deflector, there was no valid content to merge.Mighty Antar (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect as was done previously, and optionally protect the redirect as suggested. In the last discussion, I proposed that the article be kept but its scope expanded beyond Norwich as urine deflector and anti-urination device were both WP:REDLINKS at the time. Instead, what happened was that the urine deflector article  was created while the AfD was ongoing, which I thought was a bit disruptive to the discussion (but it did mean that the newly created article was eligible for WP:DYK). The best solution would have been to let the first AfD run its course and then move the article to a different title and broaden the scope. The closest we're going to get to that now (short of a WP:History merge, I suppose) is to redirect (since there's nothing to merge at present). TompaDompa (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will repeat once again, that there was and is nothing whatsoever to redirect. The last AFD was based upon the false assumption that something of substance was written about these mystical devices in Norwich. It was never there. It was a page of waffle based on speculative guesswork about hidden but wholly unsubstantiated fixtures that appears to exist on several blogs around the internet, but nowhere else in the annals of architectural literature unless it's in some hidden chapter we're not allowed to see. I'd happily support a page on the history of public lavatories in Norwich, because I know it could be well sourced and based on factual information, but specious guesswork about tangible items does not belong in Wikipedia.Mighty Antar (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't redirect content, we redirect titles, for instance if they have potentially useful page history or if there are incoming links we do not wish to break (see WP:RFD). Anti urination devices in Norwich (without the hyphen) redirects to Urine deflector, for the record. In this case, deleting either the current title or the redirect without the hyphen would break incoming links (e.g.  and, respectively). Would there be any particular harm in turning this into a redirect instead of deleting it? TompaDompa (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that a serious question? I wasn't aware that a purpose of Wikipedia was to promote curiosity about nonsense posted on Wikipedia by maintaining pages of rubbish that had managed to remain unchallenged for a period of time before being quite correctly deleted.Mighty Antar (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's turned into a redirect to another article, it hasn't been "maintained", it's been hidden in the edit history and no readers will ever see it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I find it a bit difficult to parse the second sentence. At any rate: yes, that's a serious question. I can't say that I have strong opinions about whether this should be deleted or redirected, but when it was turned into a redirect back in July I thought that was a satisfactory solution. I don't see a strong reason that it should have been brought to WP:RfD then, nor that anti urination devices in Norwich should be brought there now. TompaDompa (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How about the simple fact, that once the article was cleared of all it's unrelated embroidery, the only material thing left was spam. Anything can be promoted, including a point of view, etc.Mighty Antar (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you and I have fundamentally different views on the pros and cons of redirects. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you and I have fundamentally different views on the pros and cons of this specific redirect.Mighty Antar (talk) 00:56, 5 September 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.