Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private property sign


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Editorially redirecting to private property.  Sandstein  07:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Private property sign

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nonsense / vandalism. I've tried both speedying and redirecting but other editors keep reverting. No doubt they think it's funny. andy (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 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.--Once-An-IP (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the broadness of the subject allows opportunity to build the page into a well-developed article.--IslandAtSea (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you do the search properly there are only 388 hits, most of them utterly irrelevant and none of them indicating notability. Anyway the article is vandalism and could never amount to more than a dicdef. andy (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

*Keep per IslandAtSea.--John Chestpack (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * delete No content here other than pure hoax and vandalism. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. 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. Edison (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, dicdef entry filled out with junk content, no sign of any potential to be anything more than that. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I agree with the nominator that the article is a lame attempt at humor, and that it qualifies as vandalism. For those who find this long after it was deleted, it began with an idiotic story about an "old witch" who magically created a sign, and became more juvenile as it went along.  I'm gathering that it was inspired by another debate over whether to keep the article wet paint sign.  Regardless of the motivation, a stupid and not at all funny contribution.  Mandsford 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Poor attempt at humour. Not even remotely accurate. There is nothing of value to salvage.  If the subject is worthy of an article, which I doubt (this sort of article is probably better covered by something such as Trespass to property), then it would be best started from scratch. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:PERMA It's covered in Trespass, I could see covering it in something that covers all warning signs too but I don't think it'll ever have "The complete history of Private Property Signs" from the dawn of civilization until modern day. --Savonneux (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Trespass. I had my laugh, it passed. Someone should dig into the past and find out if Diogenes of Sinope had a sign in front of his tub. Really nothing to salvage here. East of Borschov (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Rhubarb. Not even fake sources given. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources. No evidence of notability. Probably meant as a joke, but not even a funny one. Reading the above comments I see that the only reasons given for keeping are (1) "the subject is worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, why would Wet floor sign exist, for instance" and (2) "per the broadness of the subject". "Other stuff exists" is never a good reason for keeping, while "per the broadness of the subject" is very vague, and does not relate in any way to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's common sense that private property signs exist. You can find  millions of pictures of private property signs on Google images.  The sheer number of such images suggests that this class of signage is notable in its own right.  Should we remove all articles on WP about common types of signs?  The correct solution is to clean up the article and provide some images demonstrating what such a sign is. --Erik Garrison (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they exist, nobody denies that. However, is there anything notable about them? I suggest looking at Existence ≠ Notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a dictionary entry followed by a gallery. Neither of which counts as an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about signs that say "No Trespassing"? "Keep Out"? "No Admittance"? Should they all have articles even though they all refer specifically to a tort called "Trespass against land"? Or just keep this one because it was the first made for this type of sign? It's just clearer to put it in the Trespassing article.--Savonneux (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you've actually looked at the article, but it was never intended to be taken seriously in the first place. The part about the old witch who "cast a magic spell to create a private property sign"?  The author was joking.  It didn't really happen.  And the stuff about the lumberjack who "had a secret house for hiding his extra wood"?  Again, it was a joke.  There was no lumberjack.  There was no secret house.  There wasn't even extra wood.  He made the whole thing up. I think it was a test to see people's reactions, and it's gotten some surprising results, that's for sure.  I can't think of a greater reward for his efforts then if he convinces someone to actually spend their spare time rewriting this to be a serious article.  In that event, I'm going to be laughing with him.  Mandsford 01:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect How about we just redirect the page to private property or an alternative appropiate page?--John Chestpack (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried that - check the page history. andy (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The article creator's only other contribution to Wikipedia seems to be | this. Enough said. Peridon (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed this one . andy (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, ta. Just wondering if this stuff should be transferred to Uncyclopedia or isn't that done/possible? Peridon (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be to give it a recognition it doesn't deserve. It's not actually even funny, just schoolboyish and desperately trivial. andy (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for bringing up those instances. I think that the edits described above come right under the definition in WP:VANDALISM "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."  I've gone ahead and requested administrator intervention concerning the creation of the page and the frustration of attempts to give fair warning and of attempts to make good faith efforts to cure the vandalism.  Mandsford 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Go to the Uncyclopedia. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that this can now be speedied under G3. The article's creator has been temporarily blocked for creating nonsense pages.  Absent a finding that this was not, in fact, one of those pages, I think that this discussion may now be closed.  Mandsford 00:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Private property.--Headhold (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect No point in actually physically deleting the page, if someone can find encyclopedic information about the sign, they can add it to Private property.--Gordon 41  17:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK. The b.s. can then be administratively deleted from the history.  Mandsford 20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.