Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died on the toilet


 * 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that this discussion will turn out otherwise at this point. BD2412 T 06:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

List of people who died on the toilet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was prodded by User:Liz for "Non-encyclopedic and the constant target of vandalism" and deprodded by the creator, User:Theprussianm with "PROD inappropriate - Constant Vandalism is not grounds for deletion, if anythign it is grounds for protection." Deprod however ignored the first concern: "Non-encyclopedic". I concur. This seems to fail WP:NLIST as it is sourced to individual accounts and not to any comprehensive sources discussing this... errr... phenomena; there is no evidence this topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This seems like unencyclopedic WP:TRIVIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep "Non-encyclopedic" is the classic argument to avoid of WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. The reference to WP:TRIVIA is erroneous as that's about article sections.  What the nomination meant was WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is another argument to avoid.  All we really have here is WP:NLIST which fails per WP:NEXIST as sources are easy to find – see Bed Pan Deaths or Died on the John.  The worst case would be merger to Toilet-related injuries and deaths and so there's an obvious alternative to deletion which we would prefer per the policy WP:PRESERVE.  In other words, the nomination is crap. :) Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:NLIST. In addition to the sources provided by, this grouping has been discussed extensively.      SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , And which of those lists are reliable? HowStuffWorks has been discussed at RSN and is considered generally unreliable (granted, 2:1 vote) at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_323, but similarly it wasn't considered good quality here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298. Sane for Listverse: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_295. I am pretty sure ranker.com is based on user submissions/voting. Nobody discussed chillopedia or thewonderlist at RSN yet but they don't look much better (is just much more niche but just as clickbaitish). All of those links might be very well based on Wikipedia, given the poor quality of such sites. Do you have a single reliable newspaper or better that contains such a list? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here you go, a single newspaper article, plus a couple of books, and this article itself has some coverage.    SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , It is intriguing that an article may fail to be notable, but then it can be written about by reliable sources and gain notability. A very interesting case, although inclusion in such lists is not great for SIGCOV. Anyway, the first source is on topic, but " a free alternative weekly newspaper in San Francisco" is a very low bar, and from what I see the coverage in the books is passing as well, but feel free to provide page ranges and count the number of paragraphs/pages discussing this phenomena if you have better access than me (snippets on Google). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep SailingInABathTub has found clear evidence of notability for this topic.  D r e a m Focus  10:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, I think this is exactly the type of list for which LISTN is relevant and useful as it is not any standard or ostensibly reasonable method of indexing people...if not for the fact that sources have in fact covered this grouping specifically. Cf. another "oddball" list... postdlf (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. There's nothing wrong with eccentric lists of this kind, even if they attract odd additions. Vaticidalprophet 18:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep There is no case to answer here, this article passes WP:NLIST by miles. This is a classic example of bias dislike in my honest opinion. Toilet Deaths and injuries are a notable subject and attract attention in the media and also in popular culture. I will acknowledge when I De-Prodded the article I should have clarified that this list was clearly notable. However, it is obvious to any reader that the subject of the list of a significant subject, just because the article falls under what would be considered as "unusual articles" (it even sits in that wikipedia list), it does not mean it is grounds for deletion in any way. Theprussian (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep for reasons cited above. YGBSM!  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, reasons above. -- Racoony RE  Message me<sub style="margin-left:-4.3em">Contributions 17:18, 30 March 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.