Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucking sign
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
— User:Crow, 18:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:UNDUE (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)