262:? 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
450:. 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.
418:
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
400:
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
378:
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
159:
120:
153:
347:
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
196:"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"
491:
379:
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
487:
348:
215:
Yes it's a small piece of household paraphernalia, but perhaps you could explain exactly why doesn't that qualify it for an article?
93:
88:
97:
17:
294:
427:
notable is more borderline, but should in no way be affected by either of the factors described in the opinion above me. ☻☻☻
419:
delete it? (We're assuming it hadn't already been created). Of course you wouldn't! If the topic is notable, it stays.
174:
80:
141:
275:
202:
57:
510:
36:
509:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
459:
319:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
135:
249:
352:
228:
471:- to curtain. Not really more room for logical expansion here, and the info would fit comfortably there.
406:
401:
a decision. Every article they have created has either been turned into a redirect or is up for deletion.
388:
302:
271:
198:
131:
495:
478:
463:
438:
410:
392:
356:
340:
323:
306:
279:
253:
232:
206:
62:
224:
259:
181:
455:
315:
167:
431:
245:
374:
as the subject, considered independently, does not appear to have any significant history. The
402:
384:
298:
84:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
475:
147:
53:
434:
191:
428:
333:
76:
68:
114:
472:
451:
241:
49:
267:
220:
297:. And the whole they are an actual common object thing, as per above.
447:
375:
371:
223:, and they both have their own articles. Why single out curtain rings?
331:: this article is total bollocks created as an act of vandalism.--
293:
because shower curtain rings were an important part in the movie
503:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
216:
258:
May I be so bold as to point you both in the direction of
110:
106:
102:
166:
486:meets every criteria for a stand alone article. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
513:). No further edits should be made to this page.
383:. I say yes to the former but no to the latter.
180:
8:
314:Being very small is not a reason to delete.
219:are small household paraphernalia, as are
7:
270:, although even that's a stretch.
24:
194:, the rationale behind which was
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
488:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
423:. The question of whether it
295:Planes, Trains and Automobiles
1:
266:most it should redirect to
240:for much the same reasons,
530:
411:03:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
393:00:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
357:13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
341:19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
324:18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
307:21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
280:20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
254:20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
233:19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
207:19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
496:12:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
479:08:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
464:09:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
439:06:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
63:02:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
506:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
454:should also be merged.
381:as a separate article
244:is another example.
416:Unconditional Keep
44:The result was
339:
272:Dylanfromthenorth
199:Dylanfromthenorth
521:
508:
398:Conditional Keep
338:
329:Delete with fire
185:
184:
170:
118:
100:
61:
34:
529:
528:
524:
523:
522:
520:
519:
518:
517:
511:deletion review
504:
368:Strong Redirect
127:
91:
75:
72:
52:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
527:
525:
516:
515:
499:
498:
481:
466:
456:Peter E. James
441:
413:
395:
360:
359:
344:
343:
326:
316:Colonel Warden
309:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
188:
187:
124:
71:
66:
54:(send a signal
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
526:
514:
512:
507:
501:
500:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
480:
477:
474:
470:
467:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
442:
440:
436:
433:
430:
426:
422:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
399:
396:
394:
390:
386:
382:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
349:90.193.31.216
346:
345:
342:
336:
335:
330:
327:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:
288:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:WP:OTHERSTUFF
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
246:Soccer star99
243:
239:
236:
235:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
197:
193:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
64:
59:
58:watch the sky
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
505:
502:
483:
476:(let's chat)
468:
443:
424:
420:
415:
403:Illinois2011
397:
385:LordVetinari
380:
367:
364:Strong Merge
363:
332:
328:
311:
299:Dennis Brown
290:
263:
237:
212:
195:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
77:Curtain ring
69:Curtain ring
45:
43:
31:
28:
452:Curtain rod
242:drawer pull
225:Kwai junket
154:free images
221:key rings
190:Declined
334:Milowent
268:curtains
121:View log
448:Curtain
429:Sithman
376:Curtain
372:Curtain
160:WP refs
148:scholar
94:protect
89:history
473:Yaksar
432:VIII !
421:Period
132:Google
98:delete
469:Merge
444:Merge
213:Keep.
175:JSTOR
136:books
115:views
107:watch
103:links
50:Feezo
16:<
492:talk
484:Keep
460:talk
437:☻☻☻
407:talk
389:talk
353:talk
320:talk
312:Keep
303:talk
291:Keep
276:talk
264:very
250:talk
238:Keep
229:talk
217:Keys
203:talk
192:PROD
168:FENS
142:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
46:keep
446:to
370:to
366:or
182:TWL
119:– (
494:)
462:)
425:is
409:)
391:)
355:)
337:•
322:)
305:)
278:)
252:)
231:)
205:)
162:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
56:|
48:.
490:(
458:(
435:!
405:(
387:(
351:(
318:(
301:(
274:(
248:(
227:(
201:(
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
123:)
117:)
79:(
60:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.