Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Gemology

:{{la|International School of Gemology}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_School_of_Gemology Stats])

:({{Find sources|International School of Gemology}})

No reliable sources can be found. Article is being used as a WP:COATRACK to attack the subject. I just wiped clean a ton of sources to blogs, forums, websites of people primarily connected to subject, and attack sites. Does not pass WP:GNG, or WP:ORG. v/r - TP 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_School_of_Gemology&diff=cur&oldid=498725718 Removal of large amounts of text by nominator before nomination] makes it more difficult to assess the article's potential for content and sources, thereby compromising the relevance of contributions to the discussion, and complicates the discussion's closure. Note also a Scholar result [https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00216-010-4245-z Authenticity and provenance studies of copper-bearing andesines using Cu isotope ratios and element analysis by fs-LA-MC-ICPMS and ns-LA-ICPMS] Chemistry and Materials Science: Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Volume 398, Numbers 7-8 (2010), 2915-2928, DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-4245-z from tibetandesine.com, GH Fontaine, K Hametner, A Peretti "In 2008, red feldspar was even considered as a candidate for the official gemstone of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing [4]. However, from as early on as 2006 and initiated by customerconcerns, the International School of Gemology raised doubts about the authenticity of ..."

:Anarchangel (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

::"Removal of large amounts of text by nominator before nomination makes it more difficult to assess the article's potential" No it doesn't. It's called 'article history' and you can see the pre-trim WP:COATRACK [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_School_of_Gemology&oldid=499765226 here]. There is also WP:AGF to consider. I only removed content that was poorly sourced. You're welcome to verify that claim. Keep in mind that WP:GNG requires significant coverage of the subject. Not a bare mention in a larger article about another subject.--v/r - TP 23:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

::::What I would like for you to do is just, keep on doing what you just did. When you have gotten to the end of trimming stuff you don't care for, and have, I dunno, decided that the article isn't worth it and should be deleted instead, just put a diff between when you started deleting and ended, and it's all good. I can't imagine it taking more time than say, looking for sources. Anarchangel (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:::There isn't an untrue word in my version of the article, TParis. I made sure everything is easily verifiable and the sources are reliable. Where I use fora it concerns posts written by known individuals who sign their words. The ISG, which is in fact just one person: Robert James, operates mainly through fora so this is just about the only place where one can refer to. --v/r - Rock-o-solid (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

::::Forums may be reliable, it is true. However, although WP:USERGENERATED gives a bizarre example, something that conceivably happens a hundred times a year, to define a huge category of hundreds of thousands of sources, and is in all extremely badly written, most Wikipedians rely on it, so you have your work cut out convincing them otherwise. Anarchangel (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find a single reliable source. Mcewan (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

::Not a big fan of Google Scholar, then, or did you just not read the other AfD contributors' comments? Anarchangel (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:::I don't consider a single passing reference in the abstract of someone else's paper to be a reliable source to establish notability. All it says is that this organisation "...raised doubts about the authenticity of...". That's hardly significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mcewan (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

: Additional Comment: In looking at this and in particular [http://www.schoolofgemology.com] it's likely that the organisation is a one man band and if the article does end up being kept should probably come under BLP (which might help avoid a repeat of the attack material). Mcewan (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. The above material is interesting but I went looking for reliable sources that talk about the notability of the school -- not its principal, not any controversies in which its principal or others might be embroiled -- and found nothing that contributed to notability. My personal view is that the material I found would not be sufficiently reliable to assert notability on behalf of Robert James, but that is not what we're being asked to assess here. I was unable to establish reliably that the school, in and of itself, was notable, according to the definition of "reliable sources" given by Wikipedia. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Indeed. I must admit: the whole page can be deleted on grounds of being non-notable. My version could be of significance for those looking for a proper gemological education but that's not a WP:N ground. In the grand scheme of things this 'school' and its 'principle/janitor' are indeed insignificant. Rock-o-solid (talk) 08:53, 6 July 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.