Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet paint sign (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Badger, 06:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ITEXISTS||WP:AGF (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)