Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Natural Sapphire Company (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Natural Sapphire Company
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails to establish notability; some of the external links are either blogs, commercial announcements, or only incidentally mention the company. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is blatant propaganda material and goes against Wiki’s G11 policy should be deleted with immediate effect  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.25.8 (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * — 203.212.25.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete all references are self generated press releases with no news value article to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * — Transpacific23 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep There are numerous news references that are not press releases, propaganda, etc.: Fox Business, New York Times, CBS, The Australian, CNN, and more. Some of the articles feature the company. This seems like a company that is plenty notable enough for a Wikipedia article. First Light (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm changing my !vote to "Delete", after a further look at the references in the article, and reviewing some of the comments here. The only third party neutral Reliable Sources in the article are about the replica Kate Middleton engagement ring. There are only one or two sentences in the entire article that should remain, if this article is kept. I would reduce the article to those 1-2 sentences now, but I understand that is not best practice for an article up for deletion, so I will do it after this is done, if it is kept. The article should essentially be about the Kate Middleton engagement ring replica, and nothing else. That is the only event that the company is known for in reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not the news, so this single minor news event should not have an article.
 * Note to closing admin: at this point the only 'Keep' vote is from a company representative. First Light (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - With all due respect, I am VERY confused here. I have looked at other jewelry and gemstone companies on Wikipedia and see even less real links to news articles then this page has.  For example: Michael C. Fina has NO real news articles, has links going to its own press releases, has links that point to transcripts of TV shows it's not even in, etc.  I didnt write about the history of The Natural Sapphire Company as there were no online references that I could prove things with, so i didnt.  There are multiple TV, magazine, newspaper, online articles that discuss our brand, items we sell, etc http://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com/Sapphires/Company/Press/.  If to keep this wikipedia entry, I need to be more like Michael C. Fina and list self made press releases and talk about the company history with no references, then please let let me know and that's how I will edit it to.  Also, according to Reliable Sources, http://www.professionaljeweller.com/ is a unbiased, professional news source.  http://www.professionaljeweller.com/article-9241-the-natural-sapphire-company-unveils-69ct-ring/ has an article about the "largest natural blue sapphire ring currently available on the market today" (please ignore the comment made by Transpacific in the comment section on that page).  How does this not make the company "notable"? EvanWasHere (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it is for us to decide whether professionaljeweller.com is a reliable source by our standards. Secondly, once again, you are linking an article that tells us next to nothing about The Natural Sapphire Company - the article is about the ring, not the company. Frankly, it reads as if it is nothing more than a recycled press release - we aren't interested in what the company CEO has to say, but in what neutral outsiders have to say about the company. With regard to other Wikipedia articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a useful argument - we are trying to improve article quality, not accept the lowest common denominator. If the Michael C. Fina article has problems, this isn't the place to discuss them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * EvanWasHere, Professionaljeweller.com clearly does not meet the Wikipedia standards of Reliable Source. Their own site disclaimers include that their content is "for informational and online transaction purposes only" and "Promedia Ltd intend for the Content on the www.professionaljeweller.com site to be accurate and reliable, however, since the Content has been compiled from a variety of sources, it is provided to you “as is” and “as available”." They then disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy of their content. To the contrary, Reliable Sources at Wikipedia must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Michael C. Fina article is also a candidate for AfD, and a comparison between these two articles does not help your case. First Light (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Several of those links appear overly trivial. Meph talk 16:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Their products may be trivial/pop stuff, but at least three of the articles feature the company and their trivial product(s): the Fox, Australian, and CNN articles. First Light (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm striking this comment, after my change of !vote above to delete, and after seeing the other references in this article. The only Reliable Sources in the article are about a single minor news event, the replica Kate Middleton engagement ring made by this company. A Google search for "replica kate middleton engagement ring" (without quotes) shows that this single event is hardly unique or notable enough for a Wikipedia article. First Light (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —  Meph talk 16:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete : company resorts to self generated publicity for SEO benefit through send2press-release and PRwire-press releasemost references are various versions of these releases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can only !vote once. As mentioned above, several of the references are legitimate mainstream reliable news articles, including the Fox, Australian, and CNN articles, among others. First Light (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Blatant advertising/hype. I'm still trying to figure out how you can 'manufacture' natural sapphires... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The manufacturing portion of this company is for the custom jewerly it creates. The company does not "manufacture natural sapphires". EvanWasHere (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As mentioned, there are numerous mainstream news references that are NOT press releases or so called propoganda. A number of these articles are exclusively about this company.  The company is legit, in business since 1939.  Note: Transpacific23 and 203.212.25.8, and any other non registered user IP used in the editing of this wikipedia page is all the same person/company (please see the history page of the wiki to see some of the random IPs this company has used to vandalize the page).   They are using a proxy IP to hide their IP to cause confusion as well. EvanWasHere (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been in relation to this article, I don't think you are actually in a position to complain. I have also redacted part of your last post as potentially libellous. Please observe proper talk page etiquette, and stick to issues of direct relevance. All participants need to note that this is not a vote, and any decision as to the article's fate will depend on issues of Wikipedia policy. Now can anyone provide clear evidence that The Natural Sapphire Company meets Wikipedia's requirements regarding notability, as laid out here: Notability (organizations and companies).? Unless this can be provided, the article will be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I have moved a lengthy discussion to the talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. An advert, pure and simple. Does not satisfy notability. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is pure unadulterated non-notable WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A note to the closing admin.. If, as seems likely, this article is deleted, can I ask that it be salted to prevent recreation - note than an earlier AfD resulted in deletion,  and that there were apparently speedy deletions prior to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2011 (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.