Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toilet spitting


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Toilet spitting

 * – ( View AfD View log  spitting Stats )


 * Deletion rationale is "No-content article. Concept has not been explored academically." diff
 * Comment –I completed creation of this AfD for IP user who started it but unable to complete since IP cannot create new pages. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't notification of the article creator part of the AfD procedure? WWGB (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done (belatedly) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well-sourced with multiple reliable sources. There is no such requirement as "concept has not been explored academically". WWGB (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: of the cited sources, the first is an unnamed editor's response to a pseudonymous reader's letter, in an online health forum which acknowledges in its (mis-spelt - "physical exmanication") disclaimer that you shouldn't trust it as academic or medical advice: the second is just requoting the third, which only mentions the behaviour in passing as part of a general article about spitting: the fourth, like the first, is an answer to a reader's question, and acknowledges at the end of the first paragraph that (at the time of writing, in 2005) there's no scientific information on the subject: and the fifth, like the third, is a general article about spitting. I don't see anything that supports the notion that the specific subject of this article passes WP:GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dom Kaos has already dissected all your sources brilliantly. And you now clearly show you creates it just because it is verifiable that's either you don't know that not all verifiable information are encyclopedic material or you forget. See WP:NOPAGE. And your sources are not directly talking of what you wrote; see both comments below and above this reply. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. The sources generally relate to spitting in general and list toilets as a place this might occur. If this is retained, we might as well start articles for Public spitting and Spittoon spitting. Mqst north (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not well sourced, and I can't find good sources on Toilet spitting, so I can't even suggest Merge and Redirect to Spitting, as TS does not appear to be a valid search term. Perhaps it's worth mentioning in Spitting? Sam Sailor 03:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the references are lousy, and the content is largely just a re-statement of the title. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:40, 11 December 2017 (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.