Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bathroom emergency pullstring

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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom emergency pullstring

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

Tinton5 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was to create a page and I could have gone elsewhere with this, but, I like the feedback. Since I work in the health care field, I see this device everywhere, and I just could not find it on here. I typed in everything but Nurse call button, which was evidently created in 2010, and this device is not just found near a patient's bed (hence bathroom in the title, but I like the general term "nurse call switch" or "button". It was my error for not putting in a reason for this discussion in the first place. Thank you all for your assistance. Tinton5 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find references for this (I found a couple of news articles already), but it's admittedly pretty slight. Merge with Burglar alarm? Allens (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm thinking that this would be perfect to merge into either pull string or bell pull since it's rather similar to both of them. It effectively serves as a bell pull for all practical purposes, to be honest. You pull it, the alarm rings in another room, and a nurse answers. As its own article? I'm not sure if it really warrants an article to itself, however.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
I'd think before pulling the plug on this article it might be helpful to look at some of the (presumably extant?) guidelines from various well-recognized "authorities" such as Joint Commission that led to these things being put in (and that presumably laid out their rationale and expense justification.) I am not in a position personally to presently access (I'm traveling) this suggested RS material. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tinton didn't say way it should be deleted (see WP:NOREASON). --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, although it is perfect for a merge with Panic button... I also note that Tinton5 is actually the one who created the article? Perhaps Tinton5 can clarify this? Will drop a message at Tinton5's talk page...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge elsewhere: Not enough material here for it's own article. Merge to bell pull as suggested above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found a better one: Panic button. Just put in a mention of fixed-location ones with a pull switch plus that a monitoring location need not be remote. Just include "see also" or other links to pull string and bell pull. The reference someone has helpfully found can be moved also. Allens (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: take a look at the article's history. Tinton5 wrote in the first edit summary that he created the article as a test, thus qualifying the article for speedy deletion per CSD G2 (in addition to G7 by nominating his own article). So normally I'd say speedy delete, but a merge actually does seem appropriate here. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As requested by the article's creator. No indication this is a notable topic. The "source" added mentions the subject, but neither discusses it nor supports the content it is cited for. After that, there is nothing sourced and, therefore, nothing to merge. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion per creator's request can no longer be applied here because it has now been substantially changed by another user. Tatterfly (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes and no on the move to panic button. In television shows you see it used more in panic situations, but the reality is that most of the time the button is pushed for less emergent issues such as a patient needing help off the toilet or a change of clothes (if they didn't make it to the bathroom in time). I'm open to either, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment. Nurse call button would also appear to be immediately related. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to merge the content to Nurse call button, since it is related. Tinton5 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is something similar to but distinct from a nurse call button, so it does not belong merged into that article. These are found in some places where nurses are not always found, such as senior activity centers, fitness centers, and even some places or worship. It could be considered a form of a panic button, but it is not a typical one, so its content does not belong in that either. The article has no sources now, but I'm sure there are some about it, such as those describing how they work, studies on their usefulness, or perhaps laws mandating them in certain places. In some facilities where I have worked, these are tied in with the alert system for the nurse call buttons, but make a distinct sound. Tatterfly (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what about the emergency help buttons installed in toilets on trains, intended mostly for use by people with disabilities? Not calling a nurse, but calling for help from train staff. Just wondered which of the various related articles these should be included in. PamD 08:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added some more info and sources, so this article meets the WP:GNG requirement. Tatterfly (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice job with adding sources and content. You actually changed my opinion about this topic now. I would like to say keep, since it has reliable sources implemented within the article. Thank you very much for helping out. But one thing, I feel somewhat funny about the article title. Should it be renamed to a technical name, if it has one? We should also create redirects as well, for those who may search for this term. WP:Naming conventions would be a nice guide. Tinton5 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2012 (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.