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. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 18:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Unisex public toilet

Unisex public toilet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

There are several reasons why this article should be deleted:

1. This "article" has been extremely biased since it's creation 8 years ago (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Unisex_public_toilet&oldid=52002038). This article has never existed in an acceptable state, and any reasonable person can infer that it will never exist in an acceptable state without a complete rewrite.

2. All paragraphs based entirely on biased sources

• • • The lead of this article puts undue weight on Unisex toilets being gender neutral, when in actuality, most public unisex toilets are in small public buildings where there is only one restroom (and also one toilet in that restroom), or where that restroom is only for a certain group of people (like a staff restroom). This is based on a "source" from the University of Delhousie, which is only talking about toilets on their campus.

• • • The first paragraph immediately starts with NPOV, this article is supposed to be about unisex toilets, not "Unsegregated Toilets". And of course, the sources used are definetly biased. Just by googling Clara Greed you can immediately tell she is biased. Also, what does racial segregation have to do with unisex toilets??

• • • The second paragraph actually doesn't look that bad, but as I have stated before, this is supposed to be an article on unisex toilets/bathrooms/restrooms in general, not on LGBT rights, that belongs in it's own article.

• • • The third fourth and fifth paragraphs are all talking about Transgender rights, not unisex toilets. They also as said before, put undue weight unisex toilets being gender neutral, when they were not designed for that purpose.

3. The article fails to mention single occupancy toilets.

4. Since a public unisex toilet is a type of public toilet, and doesn't differ very much, it would be better described as a paragraph in the public toilet article, rather than it's own article.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a decent enough article, with 28 reliable sources and several external links. It is also part of a whole project. Plenty of reliable sources are readily available. This is nowhere near so bad as to be destroyed on sight. Truth, reality, science, and the humanities have taken hits lately as being "biased" against personal opinions and soapboxen. Bearian ( talk) 20:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This article is full of sourced, accurate, relevant content, which is especially notable and timely given recent controversies in the United States (for instance, the recent North Carolina governor's race revolved in no small part around gender-neutral bathrooms). Now it certainly is true that the article requires either broadening (to include the full breadth of unisex bathrooms beyond and outside the issue of gender-neutrality specifically) or an overall shift in focus: for instance, I could imagine splitting it into two articles for gender-neutral bathrooms and unisex bathrooms respectively. But to throw the article out entirely would be such a waste. The right answer here is *clearly* improvement, not wanton deletion. Vivisel ( talk) 06:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - article is reliably sourced and the subject is notable enough to have a standalone article. In its current state, there are multiple reliable sources supporting the many existing claims. Of course unisex toilets are gender neutral, and I don't understand how that would be in violation of WP:NPOV, I mean, that's the whole point! Article could take some improvement, sure. Good instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and a big no no to WP:TNT. Regards— UY Scuti ^Talk 14:37, 30 November 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.