Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died in the bathroom


 * 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:32Z 

List of people who died in the bathroom

 * — (View AfD)

This is a list that would be better served by being a category. At best, delete, at worst, keep pending categorization. Dennisthe2 23:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete But if it has to stay then I would prefer a list over a category. To put, for instance, Elvis Presly in category:people who died in the bathroom seems kind of simple. Garion96 (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Silly list, possibly offensive. Please no category as substitute Bwithh 23:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrary and unencyclopedic as a list (what's next, List of people who died on a Tuesday?) and ill-served as category; down this path awaits so many silly categories as to render them useless for their intended purpose.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 00:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the title of this article made me laugh. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Largely unsourced. also irrelevant, in that the deaths described, while perhaps occurring in the bathroom, were nearly all not related to being there and could equally well have occurred in any other location. The article is hence irrelevant. And of course hopelessly incomplete.--Anthony.bradbury 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - We're about to get rid of Category:People who died in hotel rooms so if this became a category it wouldn't survive. If it's going to exist on Wikipedia it's going to be in the form of a list. Given the choice between list and cat this should be a list, but it's probably not going to survive as a list either. Otto4711 02:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken, there. --Dennisthe2 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is just arbitrary, and offensive to the deceased.-- danntm T C 04:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that "offensive," to the deceased (who I'm willing to bet don't care) or others, is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not censored. Otto4711 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Potentially offensive. Nazli 05:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek 17:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, of course. Is there really anybody who doesn't think this topic is idiotic?--OinkOink 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the topic is idiotic. It's certainly not Wikipedia material but it's not irredeemably stupid either. There's lots of stuff I think is idiotic that gets plenty of coverage here but I don't argue for its deletion on that basis. "Unencyclopedic" is sufficient in and of itself without casting aspersions on those who might find the topic interesting or amusing. I'm seriously tempted to opine "Keep" only because of all the people who want to delete this for illegitimate reasons like it's "idiotic" or "offensive." Otto4711 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't really care if this gets deleted or not, but do not categorize. Such a category would not only serve to embarrass the departed, but also the 'pedia's credibility.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article makes sense to me. E.g. Elvis Presley died in a bathroom. Tonytypoon 01:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: stupid, WP:NOT. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:48, 28 December 2006 (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.