Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual road signs

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual road signs[edit]

Pointless article. Has a single entry, made as a fork when it was decided a mere street didn't qualify as a "place" in Place names considered unusual. Wikipedia is not Jay Leno's "Headlines". -R. fiend 22:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given the lack of concensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual and that there is a difference between Toponymy and the etymology of a street name, this article should not be part of the Place names considered unusual article. The article has been started in accordance with the MoS. The reason for the fork remains and there seems no reason to delete, rather to le the article develop. At present potentially interested editors are working on the Place names considered unusual article. I ould not object to a rename. Potentially the article could be merged with street name but no reasons have been advanced as to why it should.--A Y Arktos 23:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One rather juvenile listing is not the basis for an article on unusual names. Buh-bye. D e nni ☯ 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ununual road signs get huge media coverage. We don't need a complete list though, a few examples would suffice. Kappa 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and subjective. Very much agree with nom & Denni. -- Krash (Talk) 15:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague, un-encyclopedic. The only use I see is to create honeypot to keep the high school kids away from serious articles. Pavel Vozenilek 15:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. Could be interesting if expanded. Knowitall 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand as worthwhile and interesting. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know that these things do get some (possibly trivial) media coverage, but it really seems to me that whether or not a name seems unusual is highly POV. For the one example given in this article, it wouldn't seem at all unusual if you didn't know that "beaver" means "vagina." ergot 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back into place names considered unusual. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now this is just plainly unencyclopedic. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:42, 27 February 2006 (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.