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, based on the actual policy arguments presented.--Kubigula (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Natural Sapphire Company[edit]

The Natural Sapphire Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This page was speedily deleted twice as blatant advertising and has been recreated yet again. The initial version was again very spammy, but it has been cleaned up a tad by another user. I'd like to get some consensus on whether it should stay or not, though. GlassCobra 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Prior versions were created (and deleted) less than 7 days as of this AfD. Two speedies, one practically right after another, should indicate a potential problem... Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I doubt seriously that they have released their logo into the public domain. shoy 19:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per all of above. --Endless Dan 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The initial versions of this page was prepared by someone else and it had mistakes. This new version has all those mistaked corrected and there is nothing spammy in it now. This page is just a bio page like | Blue Nile. The logo in this page has been approved for the public domain. 72.205.63.188 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Jebadoss 15:54, September 18 2007 (EST)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.63.188 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Using the existence of one article is not grounds for justification that another should exist as well. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GlassCobra 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who signed the keep comment above? There are two signatures. Is it 72.205.63.188 or is it Jebadoss? The only reason I ask is because if it was Jebadoss, then I suspect COI here, as the logo was uploaded and justified by Jebadoss Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I don't see what claim to notability this company has with refrence to WP:CORP other than selling precious stones. --Gavin Collins 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • My guess is that they are one and the same. GlassCobra 04:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither, both, maybe all three. I thought it looked funny, so I checked the history and added the ((unsigned)). -- Ben 14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether or not the prior versions were deleted should not be of consequence. The actual page contents should be decide why it is deleted or not. It looks like the previous versions were created incorrectly. The creator has now fixed their error and is now resubmitting it. The content now has no advertising, nor listing of products. It is a pure BIO page and as stated on | Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes under "companies", this company is noteable. --207.237.82.60 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)— 207.237.82.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Weak delete for being non-notable. Sourcing is very weak, one of two claims to fame ("largest sapphire") is only a $417K stone and the other seems to be that a royal family member patronized the company. There is no context in the article for what it has to do with anything or why we should care. Only a few hundred google hits. If the company is notable I don't really see it in the article. If there's something more to it than that and it can be sourced, my opinion would change to a weak keep. Wikidemo 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to Wiki rules, Google hits have nothing to do with the entry. See:| Google Test. As for the stone ONLY being 417K, that is the largest price for a sapphire in the US. In the jewelry trade, this company is very well known. Log into any jewelry forum, and you will see posts about NSC. Am I biased about this company since I am in the trade, perhaps. But I am also a fan of Wikipedia and hate pointless deletes, just because the original editor didn't know how to create the page the first time and had to learn from experience. --207.237.82.60 00:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)— 207.237.82.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This looks like a bio page of a jewelry company. They have been around for a long time. Doesn't seem like a mom and pop place. And i agree that the page shouldn't be deleted just because of previous errors. --66.30.163.37 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)— 66.30.163.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 10:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have shopped at The Natural Sapphire Company after seeing stories about them in The Wall St Times and New York Times. I didn’t see the previous pages that were put up, but the page as it stands now, does not seem like blatant advertising at all --69.119.186.15 11:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)— 69.119.186.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:N. This isn't about google hits. It's not about the fact that this isn't the first time the article was posted. It's about notability as defined here. I think the established editors here know that, but sometimes forget to keep writing it for the sake of the new people. -- Ben 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I work in the jewelry industry as well. This company is very famous for their collection of sapphires (which is said to be the largest collection in the world). If this doesn't make them notable, what does? Also, WP:N as stated on top of that page, is NOT set in stone. It's easy to research this company on the internet. There are many articles and forum posts. --EvanWasHere 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — EvanWasHere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep I don't know what all this nonsense is about being notable. the fact of the matter is, the company does exist and someone thought it was notable enough to write about. Wikipedia is a source of knowledge on both the common and uncommon. I cannot see the detriment to having this article up.--207.251.78.62 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — 207.251.78.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. I did a bit of cleanup on this article without really looking at the sources/references. I should have done so. Of the references, one is a press release from the company; one is a blog post commenting on the press release; one is an article which does not mention the company concerned except in a comment at the end, which could have been added by anyone. None of those qualifies as a reliable source. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep I came to the same conclusion a while back about the current references. But I think that what's there is an indication of what's really "out there" for sources for this company. -- Ben 14:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources. -- Whpq 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.