Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet paint sign

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (non-admin closure), nearly unanimous keep, some delete's discounted as "AfD is not a vote, reasons are required."Fr33kmantalk APW 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wet paint sign

[edit]
Wet paint sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Trivia in the extreme. Ros0709 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep clearly notable [1], [2]. With maybe a section on the psychological effect the wet paint sign seems to have on some people, bringing out an irrepressible urge to touch the paint to see if the sign is correct. RMHED (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think types of signs are notable, and the Google searches don't demonstrate notability (They all seem to be mentions in passing). If you want to demonstrate notability, please indicate a specific news mention or scholarly article demonstrating it and I will consider changing my vote. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be appropriate to transwiki this to Wiktionary? Jeremiah (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ideally, there should be no prejudice to re-creating this. It's an article that seems to do little more than state the obvious, and the one interesting statement-- about a "legal disclaimer" -- is unsourced. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some undergrad or law school textbook that has a wet paint case. I imagine that content could be added (and sourced) as suggested by RHMED about the psychological urge to test the paint. My only fear is that there will be a spinoff article called "Wet paint sign in popular culture", though that too would be an OK addition to an article. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if AfD was clean-up, this article has been given no chance to grow. Tag it, wait some time, THEN AfD. If the author says it is under construction, add the "under contruction" tag, and wait to see what he does. An internationally recognised sign and the effect that goes along with it could easily be notable.Yobmod (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to concur that this AFD is a bit premature. Keep per RMHED; though some of those sources might be trivial mentions, others show that the subject is sourceable, and I think it's reasonable to permit adequate time for that sourcing to take place. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being commonplace adds to notability, rather than subtracting from it as seems to be assumed by the nominator and others. The third of 218 Google Books hits looks very interesting, and there's plenty more where that came from. In reply to Mandsford we would probably have room for a Wet paint signs in popular culture article, as I'm sure there are countless film comedies and cartoons where this has been a plot device, but I'm not looking forward to List of wet paint signs. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wet_paint_sign&oldid=1257408019"