Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privatization of public toilets

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 as a non-admin close per WP:SNOWBALL. SorryGuy  Talk  23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privatization of public toilets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:NOT, Non-notable/WP:NOTE Writtenonsand (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: article is well-referenced and verifiable. Topic has been covered by major news sources (including 20/20). -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Evidently notable: Google News. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - given the news sources quoted, it seems notable enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A strange topic, but having checked the sources, it seems notable enough. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Query: How much is there, really, to be said about this topic? Why not find a suitable article with which to merge it? —SlamDiego_←T 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fair enough statement that could apply to many articles here. What do you propose? -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't offer a concrete proposal, as I don't have a specific candidate for host article. But this article does seem quite short to me. —SlamDiego_←T 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia weird... Apparently notable, and just because not much is said doesn't mean it should be deleted or that there isn't more that could be added. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to washroom, which is where public toilet facilities are discussed. It can always be spun off later if more information is added. ObtuseAngle (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It might seem disgusting (no pun intended), but I think it's a good start for an article on an important topic. LadyGalaxy 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't know; looks to me like it demonstrates sufficient notability. Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but needs to be made a lot less America-centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josquius (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a notable subject. So far I have found sources discussing this subject for Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana, Australia, Germany, Hungary, Russia, Thailand, India and Malaysia, and I've by no means checked them all out. My next project will be to expand this article to give it a world-wide perspective. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.