Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gregory (mineralogist)


 * 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 of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

James Gregory (mineralogist)
Most of this article is obviously inaccurate. I don't know if there ever was a mineralogist named James Gregory; but if there was, I don't think he was notable enough for an article; and I can't find any information about him through a Google search. --TantalumT e lluride 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Verifiability. --TantalumT e lluride 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete possible hoax and definately unveriiable. --Pboyd04 23:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There was a 19th Century mineralogist called James Gregory; he set up Gregory, Bottley and Lloyd in London, which has a website : . The claims in the article need to be referenced and the relevent works cited to justify their inclusion. -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|25px|UK]] 23:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found several references, for example: adiamondisforever.com.  Deleting this entry as a hoax would certainly be a "Gregory"! -- DS1953 talk  23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Try this Google search.


 * Question: Are the James Gregory mentioned here and the J.R. Gregory here the same person? --TantalumT e lluride 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is an article that identifies "JR Gregory" as "James R. Gregory". -- DS1953 talk 03:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. Then the article is actually legitimate. (Who'd a thunk it?) Obviously, I'm changing my vote to Keep. --TantalumT e lluride 03:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: The statement about the ostriches and the 83 1/2 carat diamond sounded so ludicrous that I thought the article was a hoax. Maybe the article is actually true afterall. --TantalumT e lluride 02:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete appears unverifiable and possible hoax. Stifle 13:37, 3 January 2006 (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.