Deletion of Private property sign

Comment: No content here other than pure hoax and vandalism. Fails  and . If someone wants to create a similar article in the future referenced to reliable sources, there is nothing to stop them. Thee is no encyclopedic content at present
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: though we may choose to not keep the article in its current condition, the subject is worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, why would Wet floor sign exist, for instance. Just for the record, nominator, I didn't revert because I thought it was funny (what's makes you think it's funny?), I reverted because either you or another editor added a speedy tag after an editor who didn't create the page had contested speedy deletion. Once the speedy deletion tag is contested by an editor who didn't create the page, with the exception of extreme cases, which this is not, the only way to get it deleted if you think so fit is to take it to Afd, which is what you should've done first instead of redirecting, which could be seen as a |bold move, but considering the conflicting of ideas, trying to a reach a concensus or settlement, or at least asking either me or the other editor that reverted to justify our reverts or discuss the issues at hand would've been much better, and there may not have even been need to even drag this to Afd in the first place
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)