Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unnamed 10-carat Fancy Intense Yellow-Green Diamond

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed 10-carat Fancy Intense Yellow-Green Diamond

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly unnotable, probable spam. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnamed things sourced to Tripod pages have an exceptionally high bar to meet in demonstrating notability. This one doesn't even attempt it; its assertion of notability is a suspiciously specific superlative ("largest Heart shape Fancy Intense Yellow-Green diamond"). Arguably a candidate for a G11 speedy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I de-PRODed this article back in 2010 on the understanding that its author was working on the sourcing, but it looks like not only has that not happened, but the original author tried to blank the article later that year and was reverted. As it stands, I see no evidence of real notability, and I suspect the author would be as happy to see the article deleted as the rest of us, if the blanking is any indication. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only reference is to a 404-ed website. Unuseful title. Carrite (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above; I too see no notability. The title is awful too. Although it technically doesn't meet criteria for speedy, it comes close with the author trying to blank the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably, it could still qualify for CSD G7, the sole author having blanked the page. Although the implicit speedy on those grounds was declined back in December 2010 because others had edited the page, I don't believe that prod/deprod and maintenance tags constitute significant contributions by third parties; indeed, even now, no substantive changes to the article itself have ever been made, only the slow acquisition of templates (and a 2nd declined prod). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2012 (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.