Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Window valance


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Window valance

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Dicdef, no hope of expansion, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots of articles begin as dicdefs, and I don't see why this article is any less capable of expansion than, say, Venetian blinds. I doubt that characterizing this as a dicdef is accurate, it's just a short article about a physical device. And a FBI director nearly lost his job after a scandal involving window valances. Really.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nom lists deficiencies of the article which are debatable but ultimately irrelevant - ie, a bad article does not mean we should delete it. Possible expansion of the styles section seems obvious. pictures, history, more styles, etc. Seems obvious that we should have this article. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep this article has a lot of potential, particularly with respect to the history of interior design. Racepacket (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2009 (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.