Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Gem Society


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

World Gem Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There appear to be two WGS organisations findable on Google - one is .org, the other .biz. Neither appear to be this one. I can find no link between any WGS and any of the names mentioned in the article, no sign that either of the two organisations is based in Manchester. I cannot trace the documentary referred to, and if "This group has strong philanthropic roots, their monumental efforts at fund raising for those less fortunate have been well noted" is true, it has escaped my investigation. There may be something I have missed, but unless evidence to the contrary is brought forward, I am inclined to call this a probable hoax (but not blatant enough for speedy deletion). Peridon (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a well known group in England. The .com or .biz organizations are fairly new. Just because a group starts up a website does not give it priority over an organization that has a small membership for over 20 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersdotter (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's so well known, could you provide us with some evidence that it exists, and complies with WP:GROUP? I searched for World Gem Society with each of the names given, and for the documentary film in another search by itself, and could find nothing. Peridon (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Simple case of non-notable company. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - unsourced and unsourceable in my searches. FRankly, the article smells of of a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2012 (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.