Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childproofing

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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin close). Tatterfly (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Childproofing

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

Strong indication of copyvio (google), but failing that, WP:OR WP:DIC and WP:NPOV Chzz ► 01:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep You kind of put yourself in a spot when you claim copyvio but link to a search page referencing a sentence fragment that is arguably common, so I have to pass on that criteria as you have presented nothing that substantiates your claims. What we are left with is wp:or (not a reason for delete, instead a reason to edit), wp:npov (again, not a legitimate claim for delete) and wp:dic, which is a reason to transwiki, not delete. In this instance, the topic of "childproofing" is so ingrained in American culture, I find it difficult to believe that an article can't be written that is more than a dictionary definition. Actually, I can imagine dozens of pages with citations that could be written on the subject and easily verified from reliable sources. This article in particular, falls well short of being a "good" article in every possible manner, but every single flaw is correctable with editing, and simply put, there is no valid guideline presented that would justify deleting this article that has been stated, nor can I think of one. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious notability. If you don't like part of it, you can edit it, you know. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep The topic is clearly notable. Ask any modern parent. Borock (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems a bit bizarre, how can you accuse it of copyvio just by linking to a google search? You'd need to check each site to see if it's a mirror of wikipedia. It's a notable topic that needs improving not deleting.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep even a cursory search finds thousands of reliable sources, articles, even government agencies from multiple countries. This is up there for the most notable topic I've ever seen on AFD. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdrawn - fair enough; sorry to have bothered you. With no references at all, I don't see what can be saved - but yes, OK, if an article could be written - that's fine. Maybe it is more of an American term; I'm English, and considered that it'd be too wooly a concept to have more than a dictionary definition type piece or opinion (OR, non-neutral). But I'm happy to accept I'm wrong. Cheers, Chzz ► 00:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily understand the nomination, WP:DIC - its just a word, no one has attempted to add any citations, I had a look and found little to nothing apart from industry publicity. I would support WP:TRANSWIKI to WP:Wiktionary - which is basically deletion here as its already there anyways http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/childproof - perhaps some commenters would like to reconsider their comments? But anyways this could be revisited in a couple of months as it stands without improvement its of no additional value than a dictionary entry. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, none of us actually provided any sources. I looked through the google scholar results on child-proofing and found some research on the impacts of child-proofing the home (eg. [1], [2] [3], [4]). The concept's sometimes referred to by jargon like "in-home injury prevention practices for infants" or "multifactorial injury prevention interventions". Due to pay walls, I can't read further than the abstracts on most, but there's enough to convince me that an article could be written on this in theory.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, maybe this would be best as a merge/redirect to Injury prevention.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Child-proofing isn't necessarily for injury prevention. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Searched it, saw all of the pages on page 1, all is a wikipedia mirror and the article itself is good. Please specify the site. Not google. It is very notable too. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tried to add some structure, but some additional help on the article would be welcomed. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2011 (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.