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. A later merger may also be appropriate, but that is not the purpose here at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Smith-Briggs Child Protection Reform Act[edit]

Kelsey Smith-Briggs Child Protection Reform Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Completing nomination process for an unregistered user, who gave the following rationale: Article just duplicates or refers to content that already exists in Kelsey Smith-Briggs. It has been a stub tagged with "Unreferenced" and "Expert needed" tags for over four years and I cannot find anything substantial beyond what is already in this short article. This is one of the cases where separate articles for the murder victim and a law named after him/her is completely unnecessary like Kendra Webdale, Nixzmary Brown, Leandra's Law, or even Amber Hagerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.139.6 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no longer tagged as unreferenced. The presence of tags on an article proves nothing. James500 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if I can vote in this AfD since I am the one completing it, but I would say Delete because it has barely changed or expanded since its creation in June 2009 and I have been unable to find any other significant information about the law that can be added to this article either, probably because the law only applies to one state where as the cases where we do have separate articles for the law and the victims they're named after (e.g. Jessica's Law/Jessica Lunsford and Laci and Conner's Law/Laci Peterson), it applies to multiple states or an entire country. The first paragraph just duplicates Section 5 of Kelsey Smith-Briggs while the second paragraph just reiterates what happened to her, which is already explained in detail in her article. I removed a third paragraph while completing this process because it just duplicated the first and future expansion is highly unlikely. I do not think this is a plausable search time either since her name is already in the law's name, which is quite long anyway. However, I have no objections to redirecting to Kelsey Smith-Briggs if you believe that is a better choice. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article has changed or expanded since its creation is irrelevant as Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline. Clairvoyant predictions that the article is unlikely to be expanded in the future should be ignored. James500 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good sources for this piece of legislation do exist. See, for example, the Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, published by West. Primary legislation is very unlikely to be non-notable. In fact, there is a strong case for arguing that primary legislation is inherently notable and should have its own SNG. The worst case scenario for this article is to merge it into a broader article on this area of the law or on whichever Code it is part of. Deletion is out of the question. James500 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• This enactment may be referred to by other designations. It is, for example, sections 1 to 16 of 2006 c 205. It is also HB 2840 (2006). James500 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is a report on this Act commissioned by the government of Conneticut. A number of pdf documents published by Universities come up in Google searches. James500 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC) And Google Scholar identifies an article at 59 Oklahoma Law Review 319 that discusses this Act. James500 (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG and by the number of users above there seems to be more sources that can be added to the article.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – totally redundant to Kelsey Smith-Briggs and does not sufficiently pass WP:GNG to warrant its own article. Epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A biography is not an appropriate place to discuss a piece of legislation (with the possible exception of post office renaming Acts). Apart from its short title, this piece of legislation is not merely a memorial to that person. It seems to me that GNG needs to be urgently rewritten to stop people from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is, it is not significant. James500 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Smith-Briggs is technically not a biographical article, but a combination of biography and murder case. If you really want a pure biography, we would have this article with just information about her life (which unfortunately is not a lot since she was only three when she was murdered) and another article titled something like Murder/Death of Kelsey Smith-Briggs talking about her abuse, eventual death, and subsequent trial and conviction of her parents, which is what the Kelsey Smith-Briggs is about anyway (we have a similar issue with Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Trayvon Martin). If you really think a biographical article is not an appropriate place to discuss a piece of legislation, does that mean we should also separate Nixzmary Brown from Nixzmary's Law and Amber Hagerman from Amber Alert (they were recently merged via discussions and boldness)? Since this law article still just duplicates what already exists in Briggs's article, unless more substantial information about the law can be found, perhaps the best thing to do is merge both into one new article titled Death of Kelsey Smith-Briggs (like we do for other child deaths like Death of Caylee Anthony or Murder of Adam Walsh) because she is not notable, the way she died is. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This enactment will presumably be used in cases that have no connection to the original murder. As long as a piece of legislation is in force it is a live issue for everyone in the jurisdiction to which it applies. If I was looking for a merger target, it would be an article that was primarily about the law of Oklahoma. It may be that other articles should be unmerged, but I can't comment without looking at them. I was under the impression that I had found more substantial information about the enactment. James500 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD has been running for twelve days without being relisted or closed. An AfD is only suppossed to run for seven days. There is no consensus for deletion, merger or redirection and there is no realistic prospect that such a consensus will form. It is absolutely clear that there will never be a consensus for deletion. I suggest that this AfD should just be closed as "no consensus". If editors want to propose mergers (and this is a merger proposal masquerading as an AfD) let them do it through the correct procedure. I am tempted to suggest that this should be closed as "speedy keep" on grounds that no one appears to have unequivocally argued for deletion (the IP placed an AfD tag in response to his unnilateral merger being reversed, so I infer that what he is really asking for is a merger) and it would, indeed, be preposterous to do so. James500 (talk) 05:28, 30 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.