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


 * Comment My apologies. I was just trying to give a back story of why Transpacific was doing this.  Nevertheless, I would think all of the independent articles that are not brief announcements, but actual interviews and stories on the company would be enough as detailed on Notability (organizations and companies) according to "Primary Criteria".  "Depth of Coverage": detailed articles of the company .  "Audiences": international media.  "Independence of Sources": mainstream media.  First Light has already referenced just a few of these articles above.  EvanWasHere (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so which particular articles do you think give the best evidence for meeting notability requirements? I'm less than convinced that one-off media comments about the company in regard to hype about a royal wedding are of any real merit here. Are there sources that discuss the company in more general terms?
 * The Fox, Australian, and CNN articles are almost entirely about the company. They are not "one-off media comments". The New York Times article mentions the company in a way that could be considered trivial. The cumulative effect of all the articles about the company is that they meet the notability requirement that a company "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." First Light (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Fox article isn't "almost entirely about the company". It is entirely about the hype around the royal engagement - the The Natural Sapphire Company is one of several concerns mentioned. Though the Australian article concentrates more on the company in particular, again, the article is about royal hype. The CNN article merely reports what the company said regarding the hype. Please do not waste our time with trivia like this. Either find articles that actually discuss the company itself in detail, or accept that it doesn't meet our notability criteria. Wikipedia isn't here to provide free advertising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On a side issue, I'd point out that even if the article is kept, it will need substantial improvement: most of it is entirely unsupported by references, as would be required to meet policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. Regarding the wedding articles, that is not just hype.  There are multiple news items from the Daily Telegraph, to the NY Times, to National Geographic.  You would not call all those sources "hype makers".  And while the National Geographic link may just have 1 paragraph of text about the company, there are many other articles that are dedicated to the story of The Natural Sapphire Company.  You can also see in the references links to articles about the largest sapphire stones for sale in the world, as well as the largest blue oval sapphire for sale in the world. Two things that have nothing to do with the royal wedding.  While all these articles may seem like self promotion, they were written by independent international media.  Compared to a wiki page of another jewelry/gemstone firm (for comparison Michael C. Fina, there is a lot less self promotion.  Nevertheless, if there are improvments that need to be made, please let me know and I will be happy to make them  EvanWasHere (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * CommentThe entire article sounds like a PR material ; for example “internationally known for replica of Princess Diana's/Kate Middleton's sapphire engagement ring” their are hundreds of companies creating replicas and fake jewellery how would that merit a listing on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Closing admin, please note that a link added to the article by Transpacific23 refers to legal disputes between "The Natural Sapphire Company v. TransPacific Software Pvt. Ltd." That may explain the presence of two brand new editors here, including the similarly named Transpacific23. That should probably be taken into account when closing this AfD. First Light (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that article should be looked through the prism of Wiki’s editorial policies and considered for deletion or keeping on merits. The dispute between companies is irrelevant  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment AndyTheGrump: Please also reference the TALK page of the wiki. You undid my revision which was removing unfounded malicious comments about the company, links to a domain that has more malicious links, and more... all of which were made by the same person/company that was vanadlizing the wiki page before...  all which are allowed to be removed as shown on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TPO#Others.27_comments under "Removing Harmful Post". If you do not want me to remove that text and links, then please see it for yourself and then please justify the reason to leave it. EvanWasHere (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the proper place to discuss article talk page deletions, though I would point out that "Removing Harmful Post" covers "personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" - and I see no evidence that the material deleted falls under that. It may be 'harmful' to the company, but if it is reliably sourced, that is the company's problem.
 * One other point. Am I correct in assuming that you are employed by or otherwise share a common interest with The Natural Sapphire Company? If so, WP:COI is clearly relevant here, and it would be highly improper for you to be deleting others comments, even if they were harmful. Instead they should have been reported so a neutral editor could deal with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is is not reliably sourced. "It is embroiled using doggy tactics like image editing as well as credit card confidentiality issues It is subjected to criminal cases by its Software developer for conspiracy, employee poaching, breach of service agreement and breach of trust"  Where do you see ANY of the sources for that??  It is pure malicious slander with no evidence.  Transpacific has been creating random posts on the internet to try and push these personal attacks.  But yes, I am the CIO of this company.  I never tried to hide that fact and thought it would be obvious that I have a vested interest in removing the malicious links that Transpacific has put up (which also should have a WP:COI as we are having a current legal dispute.)  As for reporting the vandalism, I have.. And that is why the page was locked against Transpacific last week, but the lock has expired, and he has continued his rampage against the company. I came online Monday to find the lock removed, the Talk page full of his false posts, and the wiki page up for deletion, which is exactly what he wants. EvanWasHere (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're starting to discover the problem with having a Wikipedia article about your company. It will inevitably become a magnet for every lawsuit, problem, etc., that is covered by sources. The National Arbitration forum decision is a legitimate external link (the attack website isn't). If I owned a company, I certainly wouldn't want a Wikipedia article about it, unfortunately. If you changed your !vote to "delete", I would support you. First Light (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern First Light... I don't mind if the link to the NAF was up.. I just didnt approve of his use of it as a "denied" decision. ATG commented on that on the history page when he removed Transpacific's edits on the wiki, but left Transpacific's other unlegitimate comments on the discussion page for some reason.  Anyways, we have opened a second case with NAF, so hopefully that should fix that situation.  But changing my !vote because of this company is not an option.  He was removing entire sections last week and changing the link to the  domain on a daily basis until I was able to get it locked (check the history page).  This is a legitimate company, with proper news articles written about it, and I feel deserves to have a Wiki page. EvanWasHere (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * EvanWasHere, please don't make possibly libellous allegations on this page. I have redacted your last one, but if this continues I will take action elsewhere. There have already been violations of WP:3RR by several people, and it is entirely possible that further abuse of Wikipedia rules will result in people being blocked.
 * With regard to the article talk page, as I pointed out, it is clearly inappropriate for someone with a COI to delete posts, except under extreme circumstances. I've not looked into the detail of the allegations, and frankly I'd rather not have to.
 * With regard to the article itself, being "a proper company" is not in itself sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article - the company needs to be notable by Wikipedia standards, and as yet, I think that the evidence presented to support this is questionable. Those interested in keeping the article might do better to look for further evidence of notability, rather than arguing over side issues. And yes, as First Light points out, having a Wikipedia article is not necessarily always advantageous - properly sourced criticism may well be permitted in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The link is pointing at National Arbitration forum ‘s decision. further the domain naturalsapphirecompany.com doesn’t carry any personal attacks, trolling and vandalism it is simply listing web content on the way the company does business --Transpacific23 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Yes TransPacific has filed multiple criminal cases against Michael Arnstein Of Natural Sapphire and they are progressing. However. We agree that wiki is not a forum for inter-company battle. On the other hand it’s also not a forum for publicity and free advertisements. One of the major facts our attorney discovered about Natural Sapphire Company is: legally its non-existant. Our Chicago based attorney did search in almost all US states to find its registration and came out with non. The NSC claims to be a NY based company but a simple search on http://www.dos.state.ny.us/corps/othersites.html shows  non. Its an illegal entity to start with…--Transpacific23 (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)