Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 19 December	21 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 merge to Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. Consensus is that this event is best covered, at a reduced level of detail, in the context of the legislation it led to. Sandstein 09:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Abigail Taylor

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

The claim to notability for this tragic death is that it eventually led to Federal legislation, presumably the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. It turns out though that this legislation was passed before her death, and there is no evidence to show that one event led to the other.

I am also concerned that while we have a 'do no harm' ethos relating to living people, this article ignores the clearly foreseeable harm to the parents in seeing their child's death discussed in detail by strangers, particularly on their 'responsibility as parents'.

If it is true that this event did lead to legislation, then a mention in that article would be the most appropriate place. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The question here is this: did this death lead directly to the passage of safety legislation? If yes, it is a keep; if no, it is a delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that the posting of the nominator contains an error. If I understand correctly, there was indeed legislation passed as a result of Taylor's death. It is called the "Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act". Though similar to the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, the Taylor Act is separate and distinct legislation. See this link: Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act. Since her death clearly led to the passage of this legislation, and since this legislation is named for Taylor, I oppose the deletion of this article. In addition, the article should be edited to include a discussion of the "Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act": its passage, its details, its safety requirements, its history, etc. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pertinent info is also found at this link: Little girl's death caused by pool drain inspires action by counsel and lawmakers. It states: "While the case was ongoing, the Taylors also began lobbying lawmakers to pass laws to protect pool guests from harm. In May 2008, the Minnesota legislature unanimously passed the Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 144.1222, requiring pool operators to, among other things, properly install and maintain pool drains and perform daily inspections of all drains. Congress passed a similar act, the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8001 et seq., which took effect in August. Bennett says the act had been going nowhere but was revived after a letter from Abigail’s father was read on the Senate floor." So, Taylor's death lead to the Taylor law being enacted (unanimously); her death also helped to push along the passage of the Virginia Graeme Baker Act. As such, Taylor's death is notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spadero does seem to be right about the influence of the incident, but there is not a lot of non-local coverage on this matter. It had some coverage following the incident and some more coverage following her death, but most of it was centered around the few days following each event and even that seems to be pretty sparse. It gets some trivial mentions whenever some other pool safety event is in the news, but nothing major. Having some influence over federal legislation on pool safety seems like a bit of a stretch when it comes to notability and there is not much indication that the sources are there. Not sure a merge or redirect is logical, since she died after the most significant piece of legislation passed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act and add a mention in that article of the Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act. The gory details are overkill and need not be included. →Stani Stani 07:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect ~~per Stanistani~~. I particularly agree with there being no need for the gory details, and share Kevin's concerns over the potential of harm to Abigail Taylor's parents from this article. — Scott • talk 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Having thought further about this, the VGBPSSA article is of very poor quality. If overhauled to fix its structural issues, it would appear much shorter. That act, and the ATPSA, along with the legislation mentioned at Pool fence#United States, would be better contained together at an article called Swimming pool safety legislation in the United States. The document Guidelines for Entrapment Hazards: Making Pools and Spas Safer by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission contains an overview of known deaths of this sort, which should be read when considering the notability of any one such particular accident. — Scott • talk 13:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act - A tragic and horrible death, but the actual incident only received local coverage for the most part; most of the legislation had already been passed prior to the incident. The inclusion of some of the details is questionable - to put it mildly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Merge & Redirect makes good sense to me. I think there may be a problem with the chronology between the time of the death and the passage of the legislation. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC) (Striking: I missed the link to the Minnesota law.) I'd like to think the law is notable, the death redirects to that, but that's not an option on the table, so I'll just shut up. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very selectively merge and redirect to Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, which should also carry some mention of the "Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act". In particular, any reflection of the responsibility (or otherwise) of Taylor's parents should be ruthlessly excised per WP:BLP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
STRONG KEEP Please don't close this yet the nominator is really misguided here. Let me take some time to explain myself. IF anyone would actually take the time to thoroughly research her death and the pool and safety act they would understand. I did the liberty in doing so already. Abigail Taylor's accident occurred in 2007. Virginia Graeme Baker's accident occurred in 2002. The Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act became a law in on 12/19/2007. The house bill was introduced in March of 2007 but presumably died in committee until in July The senate bill was introduced and somehow got merged into The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (scroll all the way down to Title XIV: Pool and Spa Safety). Although yes she died after the legislation was passed her injury received lots of attention and her injury is ultimately what caused the legislation to be introduced anyways. Now I can find many news articles on this horrific accident even years after it occurred which makes this event notable and distinguished [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. As for the Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act that became a law in 2008 in Minnesota. I know this event was very gruesome and sad but remember Wikipedia is not censored. The parents however, have recieved national attention for their daughters injury so I think they have more to worry about then 'strangers' viewing the details of what happened on Wikipedia. So I think the articles Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act and Death of Abigail Taylor need to be cleaned up, clarified and remain individual articles. I hope this clarifies all the confusion so I rest my case.JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your argument that this article must remain separate would carry more weight if Abigail Taylor was known in some other context, rather than just for the manner of her death. A mention of her passing in the relevant legislation article is the appropriate place in my opinion. Kevin (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, at JayJay's request, reread the article and considered his points. I remain unmoved. The redirect and merge is still in my opinion the best way to proceed. →Stani Stani 10:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm likewise unconvinced, I'm afraid. I have also changed my opinion on the nature of the merge required; see above. — Scott • talk 13:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made by JayJay above. This article should neither be deleted nor merged and redirected. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2013 (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.

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 merge to Guerrilla marketing. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover marketing

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

This article is a wp:fork of guerrilla marketing Salimfadhley (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, don't delete: some of it appears to be valid content on an established subject. Let's dump the unsourced bits and move the remainder to the guerilla marketing article. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to guerrilla marketing] --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (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.