Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet paint sign (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No reliable sources with serious coverage of wet paint signs have been found or given. Some cursory remarks about "if people see a wet paint sign, they will touch the paint", and that's all. Sources like Urban Dictionary or self-published books (AuthorHouse) are not helping. After two years, two AfDs and a rescue effort, it has become quite obvious that not enough good sources exist to write an acceptable article about this subject. Fram (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wet paint sign
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable as per WP:UNENCYC, and 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.--Kudpung (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article Warning sign is almost exclusively about vehicular traffic signs. It contains one small paragraph about non-traffic warning signs. This is a good starting point for a serious article about non-traffic warning signs. Downsize43 (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This survived the first time as a non-administrative closure by someone whose concept of "nearly unanimous" is, to be nice about it, different than mine. There had been talk about improvements that would be made, but I don't see that this is much more than it was then, an article that describes a sign that has the phrase "wet paint" written upon it.  There may be something to an article about "wet paint syndrome", described as the phenomenon of people doing something after being specifically warned not to do so.  This time, please let an administrator close this one. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs better references, and a search of the Google News Archive and Google Books  turns up a lot to choose from. Plus, there doesn't appear to be any explanation on why the nominator thinks this is non-notable. Joal Beal (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * delete does not really explain why it is notable
 * I'm inclined to Keep, provided better sources can be found (no, Urban Dictionary is not acceptable) (isn't that basically our definition of notable: there exists significant coverage in sources independent of the subject?). Surely there're sources about wet paint signs?  At Kudpung: I don't see why we shouldn't have a Keep off of grass sign or Beware of dog sign, again provided that sources can be found. Buddy431 (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I'm having trouble finding anything useful. It goes without saying that if no reliable sources can be found, it should get deleted.  Or perhaps it would be best be merged to paint... Hmm...  Buddy431 (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep 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 WP:BEFORE and is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep We have many articles of this nature. Wet floor sign anyone?--John Chestpack (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on Google book search link at the top of this AFD, and the first of the results that appears is the "Manual of uniform traffic control devices‎" which mentions the sign, providing it is something officially recognized by the government, and actually required. All such signs have their own article, since they are all of obvious encyclopedic value.  See Stop sign, and note the template and category listing at the bottom.   D r e a m Focus  19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 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. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a ton of references in books; I added several to the article. This is a common enough - and notable enough - reference to deserve a Wikipedia page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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. Badger Drink (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What distinguishes a wet paint sign from other types of sign is that they are peculiarly subject to scepticism. Numerous sources comment on this psychological quirk and use it as a powerful analogy.  Your failure to notice this and, instead, rant about your grandmother, indicates that you haven't read the article.  Please address the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One piece of trivia does not confer notability. Many people avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks so as to not cause injury to their mothers' backs - that does not justify an article on sidewalk cracks, nor Everybody's Mothers' back. "Wet paint syndrome", the great shining centerpiece of this article, is a neologism to end all neologisms, "sourced" to the Urban Dictionary, no less. It's more often referred to as "temptation", or perhaps "defiance"; in no way is "wet paint syndrome" the unique or even a primary term for this particular folly of humankind. If you could tear yourself away from that inclusionist flag and actually read WP:N and WP:GNG - read, not "dimly look at and scan for buzzwords to drop during your next stop at AfD" - AfD conversations with you would be infinitely more productive. Badger Drink (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Badger Drink, please try to assume good faith on the part of other editors; it's one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. To answer your question, what distinguishes "wet paint sign" from the list of signs you offered is that there are a ton of references specifically about the cultural and psychological significance of "wet paint sign". I added several to the article but there are many more. References = notability = worthy of a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Obviously notable topic, covered in many sources, in popular culture etc. Colonel Warden gets it right. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious Delete per Badger Drink. Nothing more needs to be said.  Show me a few reliable, verifiable, secondary source that substantiate the notability of wet paint signs, and I'll gladly change my !vote.    talk 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had high hopes that the Article Rescue Squadron could find real sources on this one. As it turns out, they failed. The sources in the article are not about wet paint signs, they are either passing mentions or about wet paint. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:56, 20 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.