Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port-a-john tipping

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Port-a-john tipping

This was tagged with {{prod}} as nonsense, which is not a valid reason to delete it, otherwise we would delete cow-tipping. I think it should be kept if references can be provided, and deleted if not. Kappa 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Concur with the admirable Kappa. I nominated this for deletion as nothing but a manifestation of petty vandalism. Delete unless references can be found. Pilatus 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons. Unencyclopedic. --Revolución (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You can't be sure this isn't a real thing. --Lenev 01:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Um that's not how it works - even if it actually exists, if we don't have verifiable evidence we can't write about it in this encylopedia. Kappa 02:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Otherwise I could start tipping the people at the McDonald's counter and write an article about that too. Ruby 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby: Tipping the guys at McDonald's is a waste of money, they're not even doing anything. Maybe I could see tipping the people at Sonic, since they actually bring it out to your car, but not McDonald's. ;) --Rory096 02:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, entirely unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:39Z
• Comment. Seems to be a relatively widespread phenomenon (at least in talk, if not in practice). This article talks about criminal potty tipping about a year ago. In an attempt to exclude that article and Wikipedia mirrors, this Google search yields nearly 1000 hits. However, no vote. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopædic Avi 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Until such time a scientific journal publishes a paper about it. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopaedic glorification of vandalism.  (aeropagitica)  07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This actually does happen, and I've seen it firsthand. - CorbinSimpson 09:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As does setting skips on fire. As does throwing eggs against the bus. I've seen both. So what? Pilatus 09:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - glorification of hooliganism. Not fit for WP. Camillus (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fudd's First Law of Opposition states that "if you push something hard enough it will fall over." Instances of Fudd's Law aren't worthy of separate articles, and we don't need otherwise trivial images that might be used in court against somebody. Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, it's not nonsense and it does happen with surprising frequency, but it doesn't seem to be WP:V for wikipedia purposes. Most of the reasons cited for deletion above are pretty weak though. Per most of the Delete comments Cow tipping and a whole slew of other articles should go too.--Isotope23 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Cow-tipping is a fairly major urban(?) legend; this is much less so. There comes a time when a line must be drawn; pointing out that one line is arbitrary does not make it less arbitrary to draw it elsewhere. Smerdis of Tlön 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Cow-tipping, as the article is written, was probably a bad example to use. My point is simply that many of the reasons given for deletion are rather silly and if the reasoning were extrapolated a whole slew of articles would be deleted from Wikipedia. If anyone has a real interest in keeping this information around it would probably be better served as part of an article on practical jokes or vandalism incorporting current articles on Toilet papering, etc. Provided of course someone can source Toilet Tipping information.--Isotope23 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known practical joke. I see no problem with having articles on Egging Toilet papering or other practical jokes if there is sufficient information to make an article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm unsure about this article, but I oppose the majority of reasons given for deletion. Scientific journal coverage certainly should not be a prerequsite for a wikipedia article. This prank has been used in a lot of TV shows and Movies, like Jackass and refered to Space Cowboys. Those examples are just off the top of my head. Savidan 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly reasonable topic for an article. A variety of sources visible online, e.g. this article talks about toilets being tipped (and also some set on fire). And apparently Dothan, Alabama has been the site of a toilet tipping epidemic. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • When I was a student on a certain sink estate there was an outbreak of people throwing bricks at the bus. It was pretty bad, the incidents inevitably made the local news, several people were injured (none permanently, thankfully), soon the bus company refused to serve the area, which was fairly out of town. Verifiable, but to see nothing beyond random hooliganism. Pilatus 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is a tough case. On the one hand, it's pretty obviously the product of an inside wiki joke, probably perpetrated by the gentlemen standing on the porta-potty in the photo. And yet, porta-john tipping is a real thing. I think this falls squarely under the (as-yet unwritten) principle WP:Ignore the obvious irony of making joke articles into encyclopedic content. With some non-snickering focus, this article -- which is in need of a good cleaning -- could, in fact, be a worthwhile article. Keep. JDoorjam Talk 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As soon as the opinion is removed, this article turns into summary of a non notable minor news article summary, best left for those sorts of newspapers. I'm tempted to list the endless list of similar non notable dicdefs that would get articles if this does, but it may inspires someone.Obina 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a real activity per precedent for other frivolous yet established concepts. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not verified, but it is verifiable. --Allen 00:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A real, verifiable phenomenon. See any number of references given above. -- Scott e^iπ 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Christopher Parham. --bainer (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus. Unverifiable. Stifle 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Zoe & Christopher Parham. youngamerican (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I guess. Notable enough, even if I could see a whole slew of articles created on related behaviors. Sarge Baldy 04:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but suggest a rename to Outhouse tipping which is a famous and ancient prank. Expand accordingly. Jonathunder 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well known joke. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated above. Ew. aliceinlampyland 12:59, 11 February 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.