Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring size

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 of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Uncle G. — JIP | Talk 18:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ring Size

This article is nothing but a chart of ring sizes. WP:NOT an indiscriminate compilation of info. Delete. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

• Keep This chart is nothing but a comparison of international standards for a multi-billion dollar business. I say its useful--Ewok Slayer 06:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. NatusRoma 06:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure I have an opinion either way yet. The table doesn't seem very encyclopedic on its own, but I don't yet have reason to believe that there's nothing more to say about the history of ring sizes. Nominator, could you say more about why this shouldn't be treated as a stub? I note similar reference material at, e.g., ASCII. --William Pietri 06:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Google shows nothing relevant to the history of ring sizes. If any reader actually knows something about it, please be bold and add your knowledge to the pool; otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that there is no encyclopedic information available. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
    • Hmmmm... I'm not persuaded that a lack of quick Google hits proves that nothing is known to the minds of mankind. Many other standards have very interesting histories, like the 80-column limit of terminals (based on an old US bank note size) or railroad track width. At least one jeweler has interesting things to say about ring sizes, and I'd bet there's more out there. I'm voting keep for now. --William Pietri 15:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I'm sorta kinda on the fence as well. This might be made encyclopedic per William Pietri's suggestions. Might actually be quite useful with a bit more content. - Lucky 6.9 06:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This seems like good info to have, but I too am undecided on its "encyclopaedic" nature. Since the article is not yet a day old, perhaps renominate for Afd if it hasn't been expanded upon within the next week or two? --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Blackcap (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. -- RHaworth 08:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands. Good rewrite. Keep. --Last Malthusian 10:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the original introductory sentence came from the same source as did the data in the table itself. Uncle G 19:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article isn't great as it is yet, but it's not worth throwing away. What's wrong with shoe or dress sizes, as well? JPD (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. I can never figure out how ring sizes are determined. This chart is helpful. Some expansion in terms of background and methodology is in order, but that's a clean-up project. Jtmichcock 12:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. It has merit, I'd say. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep, but move to Ring size, and expand beyond table. UkPaolo 13:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with hope of expansion. If in a year this is still mere information I might vote delete, but the one minute given by the nominator sure isn't enough. --William Pietri 15:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and mark as stub. Herostratus 16:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs explanatory text. Durova 17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this useful information! (and move too Ring size) Karol 17:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• The article comprises a conversion table amongst various countries' systems of jewellery ring measurement. Looking at Imperial unit, Conversion of units, Cooking weights and measures, Metrified English unit, and Approximate conversion between English and SI units it would seem fairly obvious that discussion of and conversion amongst different systems of measurement is a wholly appropriate topic for an encyclopaedia article, and in no way indiscriminate. What is required here is for the article to be sourced, and some context supplied for the different systems of measurement. Research turns up plenty of sources discussing ring sizes and the conversions between the different systems. Keep. Uncle G 19:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice expansion, Uncle G! This addresses any concerns I had. --William Pietri 21:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • definitive keep: solid information. do not keep strict adherence to old fashioned encyclopedia concept, please expand to handbook notion V8rik 23:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks good now. Jasmol 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If the subject has an ISO standard, it probably deserves an encyclopædia article too. —Psychonaut 03:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Measures and standards, and comparisons between systems of them, is a highly encyclopedic topic. MCB 06:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Nice job as always. Jacqui^★ 16:02, 21 November 2005 (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.