Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet floor signs

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. Good nomination, good rescue. Fram (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wet floor signs[edit]

Is this subject sufficiently notable to require an article separate from the Sign article, in the community's opinion? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ er, no, not notable. Next we'll have Wet Paint Signs, Closed for Lunch signs, Your Dinners in the Oven signs. Somebody's having a laugh : "Historians of the Roman period point to the introduction of wet floor signs (approximately 220 B.C.) as one of the main causes of the decreased rate of ankle-sprains among Romans..." - yeah, right! Camillus 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge After removal of "wit", I'd go for a merge/redirect with Sign, as suggested in nom. There's only so much you can say about a "wet floor sign". Camillus 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, if it hasn't been already. This made me crack up and the history is amusing, though yeah, it's just a safety sign, not that much notablility. Nate • (chatter) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter nonsense. Someone save a copy though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per removal of Uncyclopedic [sic] content, and per likely addition of verifiable, encyclopedic content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Nate • (chatter) 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Not even very funny. --Boson (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I beg to differ... "It is believed that wet-floor signs were first used... at the dawn of the floor age..." "Because the Germanic tribes to the North had not yet developed floors, they had little use for a sign that would declare a floor's wet state." Funny stuff. A regretful delete, as Wiki-satire. Dekkappai (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete Could be a publicity stunt for staples.com, see purchase link at end of article. Notability has been demonstrated here, and any commercial intent removed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate with Out of Order tag. Deor (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the article on the Floor Age grows to such as size that it needs this part spun out. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the humor is removed, there will be an appropriate stub which can be expanded with the available reliable sources. The present article is full of nonsense, but these signs satisfy WP:N on the basis of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Just do a Google book search for "wet floor sign". Most books on managing restaurants [1] and other property as well as on patient care [2] include at least the instruction to place one whenever there is a spill or a floor is mopped. Many legal textbooks discuss the clear negligence of failure to place one of these leading to a slip and fall lawsuit ["Business Law and the Legal Environment" by Ronald Aberdeen Anderson (1999) p 163 A Google News search shows scads of legal cases, starting in the 1980's, about accidents resulting from the omission of these signs [3] A book on warning signs contains over 130 words about the "wet floor sign": its effectiveness draws upon implicit knowledge in the average person that such a floor will present a slipping hazard, so that additional information may be omitted “Handbook of Warnings” by Michael S. Wogalter, p420, (2006). In sum, stub the article, but do not delete it. Reliable sources exist to create a short encyclopedic article, which might later be expanded to discuss the litigious climate of the late 20th century which resulted in the ubiquity of these little bilingual signs. Edison (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you're right, Edison, that a well-sourced and encyclopedic article can be written on Wet floor signs. It seems pretty obvious to me, though, that the current article is a witty little hoax. The article could be stubbed down to nothing, with some good sources put in to help someone start a real article on it though, I suppose... Dekkappai (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it might be out of line for me to delete 99% of the content while it is up for AFD. But if it is deleted and then recreated, some people get heartburn about re-creating a deleted article, even when there is virtually no overlap and the re-created article has refs. One solution would be a paragraph in the Sign article with the refs (that article is presently unreferenced. These are more accurately Warning signs, but that article is focussed on traffic signs, with only a little paragraph mentioning all non-traffic warning signs. Edison (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, as one of those people who gets heartburn over recreating deleted articles on notable subjects, I'd still have no problem with this one being deleted, because, really, there's nothing "real" there to recreate... It'll have to be written over from scratch either way. Dekkappai (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, if you do decide to write a good and properly-sourced article on Wet floor signs, Edison, I'd be happy to change to "Keep." Personally, I can't get myself worked up into doing much research and writing on the subject though... Dekkappai (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hazard symbol might be another candidate for merging into, though it might be better to create an article on something like "Hazard signs" with a disambiguation note regarding traffic warning signs (posssibly moved to "Traffic warning sign" or "Warning sign (traffic)".--Boson (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and scholarly. If the article is currently imperfect then we improve it. Deletion is not an improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my "Comment/Delete" above to Keep in light of the Colonel's removal of the hoax/satire, and sourcing and starting the article out as a serious stub. Tough work, Colonel, but someone had to do it! Dekkappai (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing from my "Delete" above now that nearly all the (inappropriate) content has been removed. I would be equally happy or happier if the article were merged with an article including other hazard signs/symbols.--Boson (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, should the article be moved to Wet floor sign (singular), when the deletion debate has finished?--Boson (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. I'll do the page move now on the assumption that the closing admin will almost certainly keep this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:29, 12 May 2008 (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.