Deletion of Wet paint sign (2nd nomination)

Comment: Non-notable as per , and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet naming. This is just  an example of thinking  up  just  anything  to  be able to creat an article in  this encyclopedia.  We'll be having  'Keep of the grass signs' next. There really  are  limits as to  what  should be in  ''any''  encyclopedia. We'll get  bad press if the newspapers hit  on  the recent  spate of silly  new articles. AfD  is too mild, I  would really  suggest  CSD, but  I  suppose it  deserves some kind  of discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYC)

Comment: I fail to see what distinguishes a wet paint sign from a "keep off the grass" sign, a "help wanted" sign, a "yard sale" sign (or a "garage sale" sign), a "trespassers will be shot" sign, a "unattended children will be sold" sign, a "no turn on red between 9am and 11am" sign, and so on. Yes, wet paint signs |exist, but that's all these "sources" indicate. A stop sign is a broad visual metaphor, used in many applications other than to denote a place for traffic to make a momentary stop. The ubiquitous "male" and "female" signs also have enough cross-cultural impact to be labelled "ubiquitous". A wet paint sign is used for one purpose: to denote wet paint. There is no particular imagery common to wet paint signs, save for the letters themselves. Its cross-cultural impact is limited to its appearance in countless cartoons and madcap gag films, usually (but not always) stuck, by the very paint it advertises, to the back of a freshly-ruined (and preferably expensive) jacket. And, lest I be accused of turning a blind eye towards the elephant in the room: For whatever reason, this particular AfD seems to have drawn the ire of the rabid "inclusionist" crowd, and is an excellent example of how trivial these "arguments" - and I use the term quite loosely - are. My great-aunt on my mother's side took part in the U.S. Census, therefore the U.S. government officially recognizes her, therefore Badger Drink's great-aunt on his mother's side should not be a redlink. For those who can't quite process sarcasm, I'll make it quite literal: This in no way is '''significant''' coverage. These are not '''secondary''' sources which indicate the '''notability''' - rather than the mere existence - of wet paint signs. One, five, ten voices loudly bleating to the contrary, throwing out the usual disingenous half-truths and |misunderstandings of both inclusion criteria and definitions of common English words such as "notable" alike in their rabid quest to defend some quasi-political point they've attached themselves to, does nothing to change the truth of the issue
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITEXISTS||WP:AGF)

Comment: There are plenty of sources out there. Being "unencyclopedic" is only a matter of opinion. The |General notability guideline is what determines whether or not something is included, not the opinions of a few deletionists whose point of view is that something they have no interest in is "silly" or otherwise inappropriate in an encylopedia. In general, articles with sources should be kept. Those given the |just not notable or |unencyclopedic arguments should never be deleted. These are empty arguments showing nothing but |disdain out of one's personal taste
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:JNN||WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: There are, in fact, lots of sources for this topic, especially the common observation that people will not believe the sign and so often touch the paint to check.  As this has been nominated before and the nomination offers no significant new evidence or argument, this nomination fails  and is |disruptive
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:DEL)