Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GemSelect

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. Sandstein 08:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GemSelect

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Claims to be "one of the largest suppliers of precious gems" but I cannot find a reliable source to substantiate this. Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that it has a lot of weight necessarily, but most of the ghits I see are complaints about rip-offs. In any case it seems to fail WP:COMPANY and is obviously self-promotional. §FreeRangeFrog 21:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User generated review sites should not have any weight whatsoever and are not relevant to a subjects notability. Article has been edited to include source for claim to be largest as noted by editor Kinu. Alexa ref added in; Wikipedia article uses Alexa as a verifiable reference, not for notability but to emphasis popularity. Structuring has been made to focus on the company's non-commercial organization contributions of educational content to establish non-promo point of view. Non-commercial focus may need reconsidering per Wiki's guidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyml (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per the search engine test, Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. I see a bunch of links to random web pages that merely say "visit GemSelect", press releases (i.e., this addition is completely useless), etc. Are there any actual reliable sources that discuss this company in depth? --Kinu ^t/_c 05:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed point re press release source-- has been removed. “Alexa rankings do not ‘reflect’...notability”, but it is still “it is helpful to estimate the relative popularity of a website” and “Alexa itself says that ranks worse than 100,000 are not reliable” per Search Engine Test. My take from this is that although Alexa doesn’t determine notability, it can still aid with reinforce it (assuming we can verify notability with other references). Would this be correct? There are many published discussions on specialized websites like Pricescope; would these gem/jewelry related websites be be considered reliable? In the meantime, I'm still looking into other publications for sources.
    - Re pricecope (and gemologyonline) --Independent sources; it is 3rd party and the authors are considered experts in their fields. Do they fall into this loop?Dyml
      - I see you've added this and this. Have you actually read WP:RS? --Kinu ^t/_c 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        In WP:RS "and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control". The members of Pricescope are considered experts in their fields. Does this qualify it to be a reliable 3rd party source?Dyml (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dyml (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 2 November 2012

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in independent reliable sources. I've reviewed the sourcing in the article and none of the sources are usable for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will of course respect any decision made on this matter Keep or Delete, but because of the site's status within the mineral,geology, gemstone and jewelry communities I thought there should be an article covering this website. Of the 600+ education articles in this website's database, hundreds of websites and articles continuously reference this website for their facts (including Wikipedia). It's value in the geological and mineralogy community is held high. For such a small niche and specific community, to be in the top 100,000 of all websites, that seems to be noteworthy on its own. no vote Dyml (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no, the gem sales site has no "status" within mineral or geology communities and the above user has been adding "reference" links to the site to several mineral articles. Should be blacklisted. Vsmith (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is fine if agreed upon, which seems to be the case, but blacklist seems harsh. I did add references to additional articles, but only to articles I improved upon. I thought this was acceptable and done with good intentions by contributing to the wiki community. One of the articles had 0 references and asked for contribution. If a reference was added, it was only done because an improvement was made. Because Vsmith doesn't like the changes, said references have been removed and no improvements have been made to the articles.Dyml (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems Vsmith took the liberty of removing a reference already, but was happy to leave the factual article contribution I updated on Aventurine-- "The name Aventurine is used for both aventurine feldspar and aventurine quartz. The aventurine feldspar is now commonly traded under the name sunstone, rendering the name aventurine to be used mainly as reference to the quartz variety." Factual addition has been removed from the article - along with the reference that the User removed. (Same apples for Kyanite factual contribution) Dyml (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Vsmith (talk) 12:26, 8 November 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.