Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information 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 redirect‎ to Signage. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information sign

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Talk:Information_sign#Does_this_page_need_to_exist? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Signage. The "Information symbol" section can perhaps be merged into Information source (mathematics), which is what U+2139 is often used for. Owen× ☎ 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Signage. The article tries to presents itself to the reader as relating to all information signs, but the term itself is vague, and the article only displays 5 signs, 1 of which isn't even a sign, and 4 of which are traffic signs strictly form the UK or Germany. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Signage. BD2412 T 02:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. This is a valid subsidiary article under the signage concept. We have many cases where more detailed topics are better handled with separate articles. Is anyone suggesting that we delete the billboard article or merge it into signage? With all due respect, the current signage article is a rambling mess and what it does not need is bloating more to absorb the information signs article. Indeed more of it needs to be hived off into subsidiary articles. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... but if it really has to be merged out if existence, visitor center is a rather more useful destination. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated page is about signs. Your proposed target is about tourist information centres. Owen× ☎ 10:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that the article should be retained on its own merits. But your reply reveals a critical difference of perspective. You see it as just another road sign, like "sharp bend ahead". I see it terms of how it is used. Example: you are in a large museum and you want to ask where an exhibit is located. You look around for a large i or $i$ sign to tell where the information point is. The fact that it is one of many kinds of signage is incidental; the critical factor is what it tells you. The lead image at the visitor center article is, yes you guessed it, an information sign. So what next? Assimilate gender symbol as just another sign, used for toilets? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "see it as a road sign". I see it as an article that purports to be about an "indicator of a source of information". If I saw it as an article about a road sign, I'd suggest redirecting it to Traffic sign. And if the Gender symbol article were as poorly sourced as this one, then yes, I'd be proposing it be redirected to Gender or another well-sourced article. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.