Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star of idaho

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 --JForget 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star of idaho[edit]

I can't find any information whatsoever to back this up on Google. Appears to be a hoax. References are dead ends, and the report number can't be found either. nneonneo ^talk 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a hoax. There is no information on Google regarding this stone, because this article is its first exposure to the world. The two sources listed are distinguished members of the Geology Department at University of Idaho, and the Gemological Institute of America report number is the results of testing done by the Institute regarding the authenticity of the Star of Idaho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patellison42 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I'll need the exact carat number to check the report. It's still a bit dubious that there are zero sources for it. nneonneo ^talk 04:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you can only check the reports for diamonds. According to their page, you have to call their customer service for colored stones. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I guess I need to read more carefully. Thanks! nneonneo ^talk 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if, as has been claimed above, Wikipedia is this gem's first public outing then it is neccesarily not notable - yet. If or when somebody writes about it in some other reliable place then it gets an article. Otherwise its original research and unverified.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fascinating story, but without sources it's not notable. If the gem community starts oo-ing and ah-ing at the sheer statistical awesomeness, it will be. But for now we don't have anything telling us it's more significant than that tennis ball. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, for crying out loud, why are wasting our time with this rubbish. Come back with good refs and sources, if this is actually real. But in the current reality reality, we need to speedy this crap. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Satisfying as that may seem, WP:CSD offers no provisions that I can see for speedy deletion of this article. --Dhartung | Talk 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD 1 or 3, perhaps? WP:IAR? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not patent nonsense, and it isn't immediately obvious that it is a hoax -- you can tag it if you like, though, since the consensus seems to be well-established at this point and is unlikely to change with four more days of debate. nneonneo ^talk 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this gem exists, it is currently not notable. If this gem does not exist, it should be speedy deleted as a hoax. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for a subject to get its "first exposure to the world". If this item is real, and someday gets media exposure, then we can have an article about it. Deli nk (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This gem is the largest of its kind in the world. Why would Wikipedia not be an appropriate place for something like that?--Patellison42 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3. This is a $5 rock from a museum gift shop. PCock (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Even if this is not a hoax, it is blatantly original research which violates WP:OR as wikipedia is not a news source. Earthdirt (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An amazingly bad hoax. Extra points for this sentence: "After spending 8 years as a doorstop in the form of a giant garnet cluster in John's home, he decided to see what the cluster contained." The last guy only spent five years as a doorstop. And I love the image of the "Star of Idaho". What is that, a ball bearing on a table? Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this now qualifies for WP:SNOW. nneonneo ^talk 14:41, 16 April 2008 (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.