Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-urination devices in Norwich (2nd nomination)
to quote {{u|Serial Number 54129}} from the last AfD about whether the source was : {{tqq|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''.}} At this point a number of editors have searched, and the only RS is a local news source reporting on the theory laid out by a retired teacher in a 32-page self-published pamphlet. This is not enough to establish notability under , which requires ''multiple'' sources (among other requirements). {{pb}}Colleagues, please don't forget we are here to build an encyclopedia, not play some kind of procedural game. Let's all just step back and reflect on the basic truth that none of us think Wikipedia should have an article about one guy's theory that was reported by the local news one time. That is very obviously below any rational conception of notability. The ''only'' question any of us should be asking is: is there a second RS about this? If the answer is "not that we can find", then we ''must'' delete this article
— User:Levivich, 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:EXPERTSPS||WP:N (Wikipedia:Verifiability)