Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanadama Pearls


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hanadama Pearls

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is an area where neutral information is placed about a subject. The article for Hanadama is biased and directs end users to a website of a seller of pearls who is trying to privately brand pearls under a hanadama label fooling consumers in thinking that the pearls come from one sole authority in Japan that grades pearls when in reality, there are dozens and dozens of private companies that place a hanadama label on a wide range of pearls reflecting a wide range of qualities. Hanadama is not an official grade. Please see below:

Hanadama is a Japanese word that refers to "flower pearls". The Mikimoto pearl company that sells pearls sometimes uses the term to describe their pearls. In fact, it is Mikimoto's use of the term Hanadama that made it popular in the jewelry industry as it relates to pearls. There are many privately operated appraisal companies that place labels on their appraisal paperwork with the word Hanadama. However, these companies are not affiliated with Mikimoto. Hanadama is not an official grading system. The Gemological Institute of America does offer a grading system for pearls. In fact, from their website it says "Over the past 100 years, discoveries in pearl culturing have revolutionized the industry, all but completely replacing natural pearls with cultured pearls. By the end of the 20th century, several types of cultured pearls were being produced in an overwhelming variety of colors, shapes, and sizes. In response, GIA sought to create a standard for pearl grading and terminology—much as it had with diamonds in the 1950s. Its pearl-grading system, launched in 1998, was based on GIA's 7 Pearl Value Factors™: size, shape, color, luster, surface quality, nacre quality, and matching." The very best surface grade for a Hanadama necklace is "very slightly imperfect". Therefore the "Hanadama" label assigned by The Pearl Science Lab is one label of many labels from many, many small private company that operates in Japan that each appraise Hanadama pearls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearleducation (talk • contribs)

Not only does this contradict what is written on the Mikimoto website (http://www.mikimoto.com/uk/about_jewellery/pearls/index.html) "...hanadama, or 'flower pearls', which denotes the highest quality pearls.", it also contradicts what you posted on your own website (http://web.archive.org/web/20060207012322/www.americanpearl.com/collectionselection.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.150.82 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The grading system appears non-notable. There is a singular lack of sources on GBooks or by general searching that explain the system that do not appear promotional. I find it significant that a book such as makes no mention of this system but does explain the generally used system. It should be noted that the article Pearl is lacking in any such explanation of grading. At the time of expressing my opinion this AFD was incorrectly raised, I have no issue with it being removed or re-structured as appropriate. Fæ (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it is non-notable. The term is, however, an important one in the pearl industry. A much more thorough book such as describes the terms and its usage in detail on pages 362-364. JPShepherd (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was ambiguous. I am neutral on whether or not the article should be deleted. I think the term is important, but the way it is just floating out there without any real connection to another article doesn't make sense. It does seem more sensible to incorporate it into the Pearl page. JPShepherd (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC) *Merge to Pearls after finding perfectly accurate referenced sources that  fully comply with Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. See WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V. The commercial links used as sources have been removed from the article. --Kudpung (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We believe the author of the Hanadama page created this page to redefine the meaning of the word "hanadama". All of the references the author uses for the term Hanadama are linked to a site called pearl-guide.com. Pearl guide is a forum run by an owner of a ring of of 10 or more pearl selling websites (pearlparadise.com, pearlsofjoy.com, the pearloutlet.com, etc...) whose messaging both on pearl-guide.com and the e-commerce sites is intentionally meant to make consumers think that the term "hanadama" is some kind of official term or official grade that designates the finest quality Japanese akoya pearls. Furthermore, the article says that all "hanadama pearls"  are evaluated and certified by The Pearl Science Laboratory. This is false and a citation is needed. There are dozens and dozens of private companies in Japan that appraise pearls and place the "hanadama" label on them. In fact, in Japan, the grading of pearls and printing of the "hanadama" label on appraisals is becoming a big problem in the pearl industry as there are a plethora of private companies posing as laboratories issuing these "hanadama" labels on pearl strands. The Pearl Science Laboratory is not a Laboratory. It is a private, for profit company that makes a living on selling pearl appraisals. Unlike the Gemological Institute of America which is non-for profit.

The article also says that it is hard to find "hanadama" pearls in retail stores. This needs a citation as well and is written to lead consumers to the pearl-guide.com where the article links to under references. Mikimoto is the company that popularized the term "hanadama". Please see this link:

http://www.mikimoto.com/uk/about_jewellery/pearls/index.html

Because the retail chain of Mikimoto stores popularized the term "hanadama" to refer to their pearls (i.e, when you go to a Mikimoto store you get their selection which is "hanadama") as it is shown on their website, one must assume that it is not rare to find "hanadama" pearls in retail stores as Mikimoto is the largest seller of pearls in the world.

Furthermore, this article says that "Hanadama pearls typically rate higher in quality than AAA Akoyas." Again, this needs a citation. Mikimoto created the "AAA grade" to identify their highest quality pearl grade offered in their stores. Please see this link on Mikimoto's website:

http://www.mikimotoamerica.com/about_jewelry/pearls/grading_system.html

Therefore, one cannot help but determine that the author of this article is not being neutral and is trying to re-define the meaning of the term "hanadama". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlupdate (talk • contribs) 12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be making what may be a valid point, but could you please clarify who the "We" are that you appear to be part of and what your relationship is to ? Fæ (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete present spammy article. There is nothing in it worth salvaging, so I oppose a "merge" motion. We need brief information in article Pearl, drawn from neutral reliable sources, about the varying uses of this term (not capitalized) by various vendors. -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  15:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete The book that Fae linked above states "There is no internationally accepted grading system for pearls. Pearl dealers and jewelry retailers use their own systems". This appears to simply be some marketers term that has no third party coverage and is therefore non-notable promotional term.  Active   Banana   (  bananaphone  22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Orange Mike and Active Banana. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I have changed my  comment  from  'Merge' to  'delete' after having  reading  the later arguments here for  deletion which  I  now support.--Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2010 (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.