Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toilet Partition

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. A clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet Partition[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing notable about the partitions between toilets in public restrooms. This article was created merely as a vehicle for advertising for a company that makes such partitions. If there is anything worth saying about this topic, it can be said at public toilet. Edgeweyes (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes, we all want there to be partitions there but we don't need a separate article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ya, delete. We don't need a partition between this article and the public toilet article. Elaenia (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like it was created as a vehicle for promotional content. @Elaenia: well played, well played. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you stripped the " Source " which is where the information came from, you'd see this was an informational article, about a subject matter you didn't have. While this page linked to a website where items were sold, the website has more informational resources on it than products to purchase. I was merely trying to create a further informational resource for customers and was going to link back to this article from the site. I understand the concerns with advertising, however unless items or services were being promoted I don't understand how it was advertising, especially now that the source was removed? If the information is in one place and I got it from that source, wouldn't that be the source or reference? How is the Burgerking wiki page or other articles citing companies who sell things as their source any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyonlinesayingthings (talk •

contribs) 18:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. Flush it. Anmccaff (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. An article about a wall around the pisser/shitter can be covered in the toilet article. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing particularly suggesting a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 30 March 2016 (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.