Deletion of Anti-urination devices in Norwich

Comment: I came here with the expectation—like Johnbod—that this would be a "rather silly nom". However. I see on the talk page that {{u|Paul Kernfeld}} raised the issue of sourcing special:diff/991419513|in December, and was never replied to. A shame, because if they had've been, perhaps we wouldn't be here now. But it's clearly an unreliable source; not only is it |self-published (Loveday Publishing), but either https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=A.U.D.s%3A+An+Intimate+Study+of+a+Minor+Architectural+Feature&fq=&dblist=638&start=11&qt=page_number_link Worldcat nor http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&ct=search&initialSearch=true&mode=Basic&tab=local_tab&indx=1&dum=true&srt=rank&vid=BLVU1&frbg=&tb=t&vl%28freeText0%29=A.U.D.s%3A+An+Intimate+Study+of+a+Minor+Architectural+Feature&scp.scps=scope%3A%28BLCONTENT%29&vl%282084770704UI0%29=any&vl%282084770704UI0%29=title&vl%282084770704UI0%29=any the British library have never heard of it. While SPS {{tq|are largely not acceptable as sources}}, it's true that they {{tq|may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications}}. A retired high school teacher though does not fit the category (in fact his motivation was that https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/retired-norwich-teacher-s-quirky-theory-about-devices-to-stop-1016852 he's a little bit cheeky!). Not only is he not an expert, but he also admits that the thing he ''might'' be expert on ''may not actually exist''.{{pb}}Since we currently host an article which states something exists when it may well be a figment of someone's imagination just a pet theory of one author, I'd suggest a more thorough analysis of what makes Loveday a reliable source. Special:contributions/Serial Number 54129
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)