Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mad Pooper

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad Pooper

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails SIGCOV. This is about one lady(?) who pooped near people's houses. News outlets reported on it in 2017, but this doesn't meet the standard for sustained, significant coverage. Zanahary (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "similar cases" also seem to me to constitute a coatrack of insignificant stories tied to the topic by original research, since at a glance their sources don't seem connect these other poopers to the one of the article. Zanahary (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new section in Open defecation. Not sure what it should be called though? Orange sticker (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having created the article, I have begun to think it now might be better off being expanded into something like List of public defecation incidents, since some others are mentioned in the article now. I would distinguish "public defecation" from open defecation in that the latter, the existing article makes clear, covers situations where people have to do this for lack of adequate sanitary infrastructure, whereas public defecation takes place when people do have public toilets available yet for whatever reason choose not to use them.

There is apparently some academic research into the latter phenomenon, which would establish notability, yet it was paywalled when I looked at it back in 2017. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree there should be an article/section/list about the phenomenon which seems notable if not the individual incidents/people (well truthfully I wish there didn't need to be an article at all...) Orange sticker (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the OP points out, there is not sustained coverage of this person or this incident. Additionally, since this is about a specific and likely living human—even if an unidentified one—wouldn't
WP:BLP apply? And I'm not sure an article that is solely about, well, this episode in a person's life is quite in the spirit of that. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point! I affirm. Zanahary (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is a regurgitation of tabloid coverage and speculation from 2017. As noted above, it would probably be a BLP violation if the (unknown) perpetrator were named.
Walsh90210 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I don't think this is really a BLP violation (it's all cited and she is not named) but it's not sustained coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2024 (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.