Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet floor sign


 * 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   no consensus. Although many "keep" opinions are weakly argued, we have clearly no consensus to delete.  Sandstein  06:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wet floor sign

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Prior AfD: Articles for deletion/Wet floor signs


 * Delete Pointless article. These signs are common, but there is nothing notable about them, by Wikipedia's standards. The one reference contains one brief section about signs, but no significant coverage of wet floor signs. The article is essentially about legal liability for accidents, and the connection with wet floor signs is minor, quite apart from the fact that giving such prominence to the legal situation in just one country is unjustifiable. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Pointless and non-notable article - perhaps justifiable if there should ever be a Safetysignopedia. Agree that "Liability under United States common law" has got nothing to do with the sign itself. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  23:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article explains the existence of these signs, which is primarily legal and is interesting in that right. I see no problem except a lack of supporting sources. --Erik Garrison (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The point of the article is how silly the signs are.  Or maybe how stupid U.S. law is.  The article would be usefully expanded with history and legal cases which encourage their use.  Also, a worldwide perspective on their absurdity would be a fine addition.  I have little doubt there is plenty of case law, articles, and news items which directly relate to them, or due their missing from the premises.  One brief search turns up these citations: Jury Sides With Movie Theater Chain in Suit Over 'Wet Floor' SignDUPUY v. PETSMART, INC.Georgia Supreme Court rules that a “wet floor” sign can itself be a hazard and expose a property owner to liabilityPersonal Injury Law (Accidents/Slip & Fall) - Slip and fallWarning: Beware of the Warning Sign and AMC v. Brown  —EncMstr (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Just as notable as windows or shoes, random nom. I don't see how it would benefit the project to delete this content. The rest per Outback the koala (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not guide or a set of case studies. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies as well. moreno oso (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I would think any standardized (defacto or dejure) warning signage would be encyclopedic. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the wet floor signs have been pretty important in litigation. Tisane (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This AFD is malformed because it does not cite the previous AFD in which the consensus was that the article be kept - please see WP:BEFORE. The topic is still notable.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joal Beal (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There appears to be plenty of reliable coverage, and this is plainly a notable topic. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs expansion to cover the history of the sign and its use around the world. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Slip and fall. That's what the sources are talking about, not the sign itself. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.