Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toilet paper orientation


 * 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 because of spurious nomination, trolling; nomination by what is likely a previously blocked account — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Toilet paper orientation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This looks like some sort of a joke. As far as I can tell, the masses and masses of citations and references are a complete smokescreen. Most of the article doesn't discuss toilet paper orientation at all but tangentially related topics. Xjobcon (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as the topic is notable and your claims that it is a joke and references are faulty seem false. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Oddly, a somewhat random sampling of the voluminous cites seems to verify that people really like to write about this topic. I note that the article was a 'Do You Know' selection July 12. Notable and referenced and, need I say, balanced. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's funny, but we have no rule against that. The topic really exists and the references look genuine (I haven't checked them, so I'm just judging by the names, etc.). The article is about the topic. I don't know what the last sentence of the nomination is talking about. --Tango (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. At first glance I thought this must be a joke too - but no! I've checked a few of the references, and they look fine - there really do seem to be reliable sources out there attesting to the notability of the subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep From the article, "What surprises some observers, including advice columnist Ann Landers, is the extent to which people hold strong opinions on such a trivial topic." One could say that it shouldn't be notable, shouldn't be written about, shouldn't be commented on, shouldn't be worried about-- and yet it is.  I think that the only real objection is the title, "Toilet paper orientation", but there's no reason that people have to be deadly serious in their writing style.  When it comes to toilet paper, people clearly give a... never mind.  Mandsford 21:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of the imagery is superfluous though and should probably be.... flushed.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 21:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It clearly has notability and just as clearly isn't a joke, saying all the references and citations are a smokescreen ignores that it is those which confer and confirm the former formally. I'm going to assume good faith, and that this isn't just a case of a disgruntled underhanger wanting to wipe away the evidence that the majority of people hang their toilet paper the correct way ;). Anyway, this article may have the appearance of appearing slightly burlesque in its serious treatment of what some seem to consider a trifle, but it is a real and valid subject.Number36 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but perhaps discuss whether the tone is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Reading through it, it seems more like an article in a news magazine. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well written and research-Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Real topic, really covered by real sources. That it is light hearted doesn't make it less real. Nominate this one for FA.  I smell an April Fools article for next year!  -- Jayron  32  23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * keep, this is a great article and is very well sourced. Pamela BMX 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a cool "random, albeit notable" fact article. It was featured on the main page! Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Nominator has no prior edits and may be the same banned/blocked user who's been harassing me in edit summaries.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2010 (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.