Talk:Anti-urination devices in Norwich

Untitled

Hi, this is one of my first talk page entries so please let me know if I'm breaking any rules!

Reading through the citations for this article, all of the substantial information seems to come from Loveday 2016 (although there is some excellent contextual information from a variety of sources). Further researching the Loveday publication, I came across Retired Norwich teacher’s quirky theory about devices to stop people urinating in city streets from the Eastern Daily Press. If my interpretation from that article is correct, Loveday 2016 is actually a self-published booklet. In that article, he's quoted as saying, "Nobody knows what they are, it's my theory and most people are agreeing with that." Although I agree it's a cool theory, it doesn't feel like Loveday 2016 meets Wikipedia's standard for a reliable source, since it doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed or published by a well-known publisher.

I think a skeptical reader might say, "I certainly agree that these architectural features exist, but is there any firm evidence documenting that the intent of them is to prevent urination?" In order of magnitude, what about one of the following actions to this page?

1. Add the "One source" template
2. Add the "Unreliable source?" template
3. Rename this article to "Hypothesized anti-urination devices in Norwich"
4. Remove this article

I hope that editors more experienced than me will have suggestions on how to make the right call.

I really want to help improve the quality of this material and I hope that I'm not offending anyone, so please let me know what more I can do to be helpful!

Paul Kernfeld (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Change page title

Perhaps, if it is only a theory the page title should be changed to "theorised anti-urination devices in Norwich" or somesuch. 96.57.230.174 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Are there two WP:GNG sources about this theory or just the one local news source you added? (Thanks for adding it.) Levivich 01:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Whoa wikiacronyms :) tbh idk, but that was the only one I found with google, maybe try bing or ask a librarian? 96.57.230.174 (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I can also ask around on discord or reddit, I know some people who do more wiki editing than I do. 96.57.230.174 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe you should ask around, wiki editing isn't really my thing, I only do it every so often :) 96.57.230.174 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned briefly in https://forgottengalicia.com/urine-deflectors-lviv/ but probably not gng, and I don't think that's an allowed ref anyway, although you could ask. Anyway I got other stuff to do ttfn. 96.57.230.174 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like the page was deleted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , hope it wasn't my fault. 96.57.230.174 (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirections and the corresponding IP reverts (also posted at AfD)

Here are the four redirections and the corresponding IP reverts:

• Redirected at 01:32, 22 July 2021 by Levivich with edit summary (redirect to Anti-urination device - there are no sources in this article about anti-urination devices in Norwich any longer - I see no content to merge)
  • Reverted at 16:35, 25 July 2021 by 107.77.203.50 with edit summary (We just had a discussion on this and it closed as keep, not redirect or no consensus, either appeal at drv, or respect the outcome for 6 months)
• Redirected at 13:16, 28 July 2021 by Levivich with edit summary (Undid revision 1035429453 by 107.77.203.50 (talk) this article fails WP:V)
  • Reverted at 19:49, 31 July 2021 by 173.3.250.213 with edit summary (If someone thinks an article fails WP:V and should be deleted or redirected it is discussed at afd. We just had the discusion and the community strongly disagreed with you, so stop trying to supervote redirect just because the afd did not go your way, and edit-warring against consensus is poor form. You may always appeal at drv, or clean up the article so that it meets WP:V in your opinion too.)
• Redirected at 01:38, 6 August 2021 by Drmies with edit summary (this whole thing is ridiculous: it's based on a local newspaper article about a 32-page booklet self-published by some dude.)
  • Reverted at 00:35, 14 August 2021 by 146.168.203.51 with edit summary (Once again, when a redirect has been challenged you must use afd. Edit-warring in a redirect is unacceptable, since this was just at afd you have three options 1-help implement the close (clean up the article) 2-appeal the close (at drv not by edit-warring) 3-walk away)
• Redirected at 19:05, 26 August 2021 by Elmidae with edit summary (pointless to keep in its current form - we do not have articles on single individuals' private theories. The piecewise removals of unsourced text, unrtelated text, and unrelated sources in the last few days seem entirely well justified, and if this is the result, it can't stay. Redirecting to Urine deflector)
  • Reverted at 01:13, 31 August 2021 by 156.98.51.156 with edit summary (Undid revision 1040801130 by Elmidae (talk) when a redirect has been challenged you must use afd edit-warring in a redirect is unacceptable, since this was just at afd you can either, help implement the close, challenge the close (at drv) or walk away)

The same list was also posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-urination devices in Norwich (2nd nomination). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)