Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinky ring

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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. NAC. Cliff Smith 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky ring[edit]

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

Article having been challanged with Notability and unreferenced tags since January 2010 in which no sources have been provided. Various paragraphs have been added and removed throughout the duration of this article. Does not make sense to have this be a merge to Ring (jewellery) as there is no reasonable content to merge. Hasteur (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no thanks to the current content. The topic has sufficient currency for an actual article, however, ~~and I'm in the process of drafting a sourced upgrade now.~~ Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten. There's still a lot of work that can be done here. I pretty much flatly skipped any effort to include the origins of this jewelry in the signet rings of the European aristocracy, but citations for that are out there. There's also quite a bit of material still to include from Islamic tradition, where silver signet rings worn on the left little finger are a tradition with a history dating all the way back to Mohammad. Obviously, a lot of the older material simply refers to "rings worn on the little finger" or the like, and is a somewhat more elusive search target. If I have time (or if this survives deletion), I'll try to do a second pass on article expansion, but I think enough is there now to get it over the retention threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Corn cheese (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepas per Squeamish. The new sourcing looks absolutely fine, great job. Mabalu (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Willing to withdraw this nominaton. It's a shame that an article has to end up at AfD in order to kick support into gear after being a very poor stub for 5 years with very few or no references. Perhaps the savior would like to also take up the other sub-stubs listed on Ring (jewellery) such as Mourning ring, Poison ring and others listed there. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedic topic. Does not represent a fork of ring. Carrite (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, plenty of good sources on display now. Well done, Squeamish Ossifrage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Vast improvement over what it was and now a perfectly fine article. High praise to Squeamish Ossifrage. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2012 (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.