Deletion of Fucking sign

Comment: on second thought, I would prefer a merge. There is some good information here, even if the topic fails 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The topic is notable.  The claim of the nomination that there is no content which is not in the more general article is false.  There are clearly sensible |alternatives to deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: to Fucking, Austria#Name, where the signs are mentioned. Since the primary claim of Fucking, Austria ''is'' its name and sign a  is no necessary
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:CONSPLIT)

Comment: per " Article is about a different subject than the town, although they are interrelated." please, the town and the sign for the town are inherently related.  Trying to claim they are somehow completely worthy of independent articles is bizarre per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)

Comment: any unduplicated content back to the town's article. This can then be returned to redirect status as it is a plausible search term. Otherwise, this article is a completely un-needed fork.  mainly applies to viewpoints about a topic, not really aspects ''of'' the subject. The one line in there that might apply here states {{tq|An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}}. This actually strengthens the policy basis to delete it, as the coverage of the sign vis-a-vis the town in the main article is heavily tilted towards the sign in reliable published material. So having the main article focus heavily on the sign matches the focus of sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: or '''Merge''' Lots of sources.  No compliance with efore. Article is about a different subject than the town, although they are interrelated.  Article is not a copy violation or a lift from the town article.  I agree with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: Under , to include all information about the sign in the village article puts undue weight onto the sign in it. The village is more than just a sign. If anything, the content in the village article about the sign should be merged into the sign article. Not to mention that the sign article includes information about it being the most stolen sign in the world, the statistics for the thefts and info about websites offering guidance on how to commit them. And furthermore, what is the difference between saying "Fucking taxpayers" and "London taxpayers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)