Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urinal etiquette


 * 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 of the debate was delete (just). — FireFox 11:28, 28 May '06

Urinal etiquette
Completely original research - the article even says no-one has done any official studies into it, and one of the external links has a note saying it disagrees with the article, which means the article MUST be POV. Tango 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --134.9.228.11 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep POV at this stage, but that's not actually a reason to delete an article - it just needs fixing. THE KING 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmizrachi (talk • contribs)
 * Keep per the king. Also, Tango--your statement is a non-sequitor.  It could also be possible that the article itself is NPOV and link has a slanted POV.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 20:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An NPOV article and a POV article don't disagree. Only 2 POV articles can do that.  A NPOV article doesn't have take a side, so can't be disagreed with. --Tango 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete- It's nothing but original research. Reyk  YO!  20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - and I might point out that studies have been done on this topic. - Richardcavell 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete-This article is written in an offensive and homophobic tone. It should be rewritten or deleted.
 * Strong delete with prejudice per WP:OR, and the fact that this is not notable in any way Hobbeslover 01:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, This article is a joke. Whoever contributed it should keep the source of this page on their blog. It is amusing, but has no place in Wikipedia (except a user page)--Cocopuffberman 03:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. -- Kjkolb 03:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If no one cites any sources. Otherwise, the article shows original research.  Have a nice day.  --Starionwolf 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe its a legitimate social phenomenon.  POV can be fixed.  Its pretty funny too. &mdash;Kymacpherson 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is, but if we're going to have an article on it, it needs to be written from scratch - the existing article is completely OR. --Tango 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * delete non-encyclopedic Wombdpsw 05:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep it is an interesting article on social "beliefs"; i too found it rather amusing SMC 09:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. -- E ivindt@c 10:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is slightly amusing, but belongs in a comedy site or anything but an encyclpedia.
 * Keep The subject of urinal etiquette is one of interest, and there are citable sources - the article as it stands needs substantial cleaning. Although it might be an odd article, it is a subject worthy of an encyclopaedia. WilyD 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the subject, this is about the article. The "substantial cleaning" it needs is a complete rewrite - there is no point keeping an article that needs rewriting from scratch. --Tango 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And there are excellent tags for articles needing attention, and articles needing a lot of attention. Being badly written isn't a criteria for deleting articles, but for improving them. WilyD 00:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR, but transwiki, userfy, BJAODN or something beforehand.  young  american  (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no funny. Pavel Vozenilek 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I think it's very funny and should be on a humor site (as already stated), but it's not encyclopedic.69.253.172.209 01:46, 28 May 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.