Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5 Lever Lock

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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 Lever Lock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability not established; unreferenced since Nov. 2007; no significant secondary sources on google:5-lever-lock. Lea (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 5 lever locks are the standard secure locks in Britain. Googling '5 lever lock' I find 333,000 references. Nick mallory (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Google, you'd have to search for 5-lever-lock (1.3k hits) or "5 lever lock" (5k hits), which yield mostly store sites, not just 5 lever lock (2M hits, duh). Regarding notability, I'm not entirely convinced that being the standard secure lock in Britain makes it notable. Some independent source would definitely be good here. -- Lea (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. The standards are BS 3621:2007 and BS 8621:2007, which specify a lot of things, not solely five levers. Saying that the standard is a "5 lever lock" is a misnomer. There are 7-lever locks that are BS 3621 certified, for example. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the article be moved to something more generic then ("lever lock" doesn't sound quite right to me)? *not-a-lock-expert-at-all* It does seem to contain valuable encyclopedic content. -- Lea (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• split/merge to Pin tumbler lock/Mortise lock as Jonathan says the current article is ambiguous, part of it refers to Chub which are a type of Pin tumbler lock and other refer to Mortise lock. The fact that there are 5 pins/leavers is not sufficient to define the lock. --Salix alba (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Split and merge per the white willow's reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this article is written as if people who know a lot about British standards (which are really BS) and locks are going to read it. It does not provide enough context in the lead paragraph to explain what it is talking about. It makes claims that a particular lock is the preeminent standard, and then says that it is only used in England and Scandinavia. It touts a specific brand. I think it should be deleted and the contents should be merged with the recycle bin of whomever deletes it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it touts a particular brand. "Chub" is a brand name used generically in the UK to refer to this kind of lock, as "Hoover" is used as a generic term for a vacuum-cleaner. Sensiblekid (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Split and merge per the white willow's reasoning. TerriersFan (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:N; needs cleaning, not deletion.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 02:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Sallicio. Sensiblekid (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2008 (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.