Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimes surrounding Golconda Diamonds


 * 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 merge to Golconda diamonds. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Crimes surrounding Golconda Diamonds

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE grouping. Diamonds get stolen, but that they are also Golconda diamonds is not really relevant (no one sets out to specifically steal Golconda diamonds and not other ones, do they?). Fram (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Lists,  and India. Fram (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Golconda diamonds article, some interesting facts, nothing enough to build an article on. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge Per Oaktree. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There is much more information that needs to be added to this article/topic. If we merge it with Golconda diamonds, it will simply disbalance the section. I am in the process to seek FA for the Golconda diamond article. :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there an RS which has noted these crimes as especially linked to this subcategorization of diamonds? Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes there are. In fact some are cited in the article, the other reason why I support to keep the article is, there are plenty of heist, theft and scandles linked to these Golconda diamonds, writing them in main article will confuse the readers as well as it will complicate the topic, after realising a lot I created this article, otherwise I would have not done it. Omer123hussain (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of the titles in the article's citations naming this class/source of diamonds. Which ones make note of it and discuss it non-trivially? I don't have time to plow through all of them. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So as a trial let's keep the article it will develop in mean time, even this two week I am shortage of time, I don't still understand why it was nominated in so early stage, it is not the first time i created the article.  As I said there are many more information to expand in this article-such as preceding and trials etc, the Sydney townhall heist, the princi diamond trial and the AL Thani collection etc are all about Golconda diamonds. That's why according to me it's immature nomination for deletion in so early stage. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge into Golconda diamonds, as not only is the length not sufficient to justify a standalone, the sources currently used do not establish the significance of the topic, but only examine crimes related to individual diamonds, collections, or people. As such this is an indiscriminate list, per nom. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * what you mention above can be improved, it is a very interesting topic, there is scope to expand this article, as there are many controversies, heists, thefts, and scandals linked directly or indirectly to this Golconda diamonds. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be comparable to an article about, say, "crimes surrounding Italian paintings". Italian paintings are among the most notable and valuable ones (e.g. the Mona Lisa), and many Italian paintings have been stolen, destroyed, ... That doesn't make the combination, the grouping, a good subject, as there is nothing special about "crimes surrounding Italian paintings" compared to crimes regarding French, Dutch, American... paintings, it hasn't been treated as a separate subject by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * selective merge to Golconda diamonds. Most of the reliably sourced content is already covered there. If additional reliable sources can be developed to show this intersection is notable, an article can be spun back out. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2022 (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.