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 delete. Xy7 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gracie Diet[edit]

The Gracie Diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unencyclopedic how-to, unreferenced, non-notable? TheMolecularMan (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect – to Carlson Gracie. Typically I would agree with the nominator. However, with the growing popularity of the The Ultimate Fighter and the Gracies' popularity and dominance in the sport I believe a merge and redirect to the founder’s page is appropriate. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could understand that, if the article is improved to resemble encyclopedic content fit for merging, and if it properly cites secondary sources to establish notability. As it is now, I think it's more suitable for deletion. If it merits inclusion at the main article (which has problems of its own), probably best to start from scratch. TheMolecularMan (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – An article that needs help in style – content – rewording/writing and or citing is not a reason for a proposed deletion. It is an article that needs a prod tag placed on it not an AFD. My personal opinion is that it is far easier to propose for deletion, for many, than it is to improve. Why not take at shot at helping the piece rather than killing the prose. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I opted for AfD (following a contested PROD) because it contained no indication of notability and virtually no encyclopedic content. If that changes, we can of course reassess. TheMolecularMan (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Say Goodnight, Gracie Recommending deletion due to problems with WP:RS and WP:V. Also, some of the text in the article appears to have been lifted verbatim from the web site devoted to the subject: [1]. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Not notable. More pressing, though, is the copyright violation. Tagged for speedy. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag removed and replaced with copy-vio tag so this discussion can proceed as to if the article should exist at all. Ian¹³/t 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to force process. If it is a copyvio we just speedily delete it. If the author recreates a copyvio, we just speedily delete that. The notability of a hypothetical article that isn't a copyvio isn't too germane. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't appear to meet the g-12 requirements (though I disagree), so I apologize for reverting User:Ian13 above. I am still not convinced that the article is independently notable. A merge rather than delete is fine too. Protonk (talk) 15:57, 21 September 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.