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 keep. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curtain ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Declined PROD, the rationale behind which was "Very small part of household paraphernalia that in no way qualifies for an encyclopedia article. Can't believe there's no speedy criteria that this fits" Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes it's a small piece of household paraphernalia, but perhaps you could explain exactly why doesn't that qualify it for an article? Keys are small household paraphernalia, as are key rings, and they both have their own articles. Why single out curtain rings? Kwai junket (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for much the same reasons, drawer pull is another example. Soccer star99 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I be so bold as to point you both in the direction of WP:OTHERSTUFF? Taking this article, and the subject, on its own merits, we have no reason to keep it. Just because a thing exists, doesn't mean it should have an article. There is not a long history of important technological innovation or design behind a curtain hook. Nor is there a proliferation of in-depth dedicated coverage about them. At the very very most it should redirect to curtains, although even that's a stretch. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because shower curtain rings were an important part in the movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles. And the whole they are an actual common object thing, as per above. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being very small is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire: this article is total bollocks created as an act of vandalism.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter if it was created as an act of vandalism? You're not judging the entry for its merits but have taken a rather more prejudiced look at the matter 90.193.31.216 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Merge or Strong Redirect to Curtain as the subject, considered independently, does not appear to have any significant history. The Curtain article is not over-long. Rings, hooks, eyelets and similar curtainy paraphernalia may be discussed there. A separate article is only warranted if the subject is independently significant or takes up too large a proportion of the main article, neither of which appears to be the case. I should point out, too, that this AfD shouldn't be a discussion of whether the subject is notable for inclusion, only whether it is notable for inclusion as a separate article. I say yes to the former but no to the latter. LordVetinari (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep Out of all the lousy articles this person has been creating for the smallest most mundane things in life, this one seems to be the only one that might be somewhat useful. However, I definitely think it will need some cleanup. I would encourage you to look up the creator's other contribs before making a decision. Every article they have created has either been turned into a redirect or is up for deletion. Illinois2011 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unconditional Keep If it needs cleanup, it needs cleanup. If the creator of the article made some duds, xe made some duds. Neither of those would be a reason. Think about it this way: If Willy On Wheels create the article on "The United States" with some useful information and really messed-up formatting, would you delete it? (We're assuming it hadn't already been created). Of course you wouldn't! If the topic is notable, it stays. Period. The question of whether it is notable is more borderline, but should in no way be affected by either of the factors described in the opinion above me. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 06:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Curtain. There doesn't seem to be much potential for expansion, and the information about parts of curtains can stay together instead of split between the main article and stubs such as this. The "improvisations" paragraph just seems to be random references, they don't seem to be notable or appropriate uses of curtain rings. Curtain rod should also be merged. Peter E. James (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - to curtain. Not really more room for logical expansion here, and the info would fit comfortably there. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets every criteria for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2011 (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.