Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Gemological Institute


 * 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 Non-Admin Closure. Fun Pika  00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

International Gemological Institute

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is heavy on POV, opinions, and forward looking statements that are not encyclopedic. Smells like advert. Emana (Talk) 17:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - It is full of POV, but it seems notable enough, needs cleanup. Res2216firestar 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; certainly a notable body with sources that meet WP:ORG. I have cleaned out or tagged the worst of the POV though it still reads a bit spammy. Smile a While (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources are ad-papers, not news sources. Any statement in an ad does not meet WP:RS unless it is a direct quote. These sources have been removed before, but re-submitted by single purpose accounts. Please see talk section for unreliable sources.-- Emana (Talk) 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - still a bit spammy, but getting better. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep-- Article is has references and a further reading section. The Spam issue can be resolved by editing, there is no deadline. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The references are not easily verifiable by the public. Many of the articles in the further reading section does not directly concern IGI and many mention the unverifiable references as having connections with IGI - therefore, creating a firestorm of looped hits for the advertisers. -- Emana (Talk) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (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.