Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia


 * 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 wasDelete issues with WP:N WP:CORP obvious WP:COI Gnangarra 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination for deletion as WP:VSCA, and also requesting the article be salted. Article has been previously speedied four times as copyvio, G12, and 2x G4's as recreation of deleted material. Article in all iterations has consistently failed WP:CORP and despite repeatedly being tagged for clean-up never has been. The core contributing user to all versions only edits in a very small scope of articles relating to Diamonds, and these edits are all for the sole purpose of adding information relating to Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia and links back to this article. The user is an obvious single-issue editor with the sole purpose of promoting the company in question, and the article in all forms has been blatant spam. Also breaches the spirit of WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Thewinchester (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Thewinchester (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The users own talk page confirms that the user has a significant conflict of interest in both this article and the subject matter, being the Director of company that is the articles subject (diffs). A quick phone call to the company can also confirm this information. Thewinchester (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete This has been deleted before with no deletion review to restore it (WP:CSD) . Optionally protect this page from recreation if it is deleted. ( [ →] zel  zany  - uses a new sig) 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As Eastmain said below, it was an incorrect use of G4 before and this should have been taken to AfD a few deletions ago. And yes, this article does need to be salted if consensus leans delete (noted in my nom). Thewinchester (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will concur with both of you. ( [ →] zel zany  - uses a new sig) 01:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. G4 does not apply in this case. It only applies if the article has been deleted as a result of an AfD. --Eastmain 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment Not convinced it meets WP:N, and the COI issues are a problem. Orderinchaos 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Have rescinded my vote pending advice from the relevant WikiProject - may be notable per Eastmain, and may be able to be expanded by someone other than the article's subject. Orderinchaos 06:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another comment. I would expect that a grading and classification service like this one or the others mentioned in this article would be mentioned often enough in jewelry industry publications to establish notability. The World Federation of Diamond Bourses http://www.worldfed.com/newsletter/old/WFDB%20Newsletter%20No%206.doc  lists DCLA as one of five "gemological laboratories worldwide that apply the IDC Rule Book." I think this might be a case where the article topic is notable, despite the obvious problems with the current version of the article. Because I don't know much about this field, I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry about this AfD. Perhaps some of the participants in the Gemology and Jewelry WiikiProject will be able to offer some insights into the notability of gemological laboratories such as this one. --Eastmain 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Good call on notifying the Gemology and Jewelry WiikiProject, didn't even think about other relevant projects which might be able to throw some light on the subject. Thewinchester (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They may also know how to improve the article. Orderinchaos 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I will refer refrain from making a recommendation pending advice from the Wikiproject. Google News Archive has some coverage although it is mainly incidental in being quoted in news stories. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:40, 13 June 2007 (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.