Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swa Diamonds

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. And, sorry to say this, Phil, but that ring! Wow, that was mighty impressive. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swa Diamonds[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Swa Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business, the award won does not appear significant. Poor sourcing otherwise, nothing found we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking significant and reliable coverage. Guinness World Records holders are not inherently notable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  1. They have 150 stores all over India now. It's been reported by Fashion Network when they reported about their store opening in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
  2. I have removed the sentence about the award as per oaktree b's input.
  3. As you well know, the Guinness World Records is not insignificant(I have included the links from Guinness world records themselves, and media outlets like CNN, Fox Business, etc.). After I removed the 'Swadesh National Award', I believe the article stands.
  4. The article only has 4 sentences now, with 9 links for citation.


I request you to reconsider the nomination for deletion.

--Libinthathappilly (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider Guinness Records notable, as you can pay to have them certify your "record". Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have only added details that are factual. I believe the language is neutral. And have provided several relevant citations from- including and not limited to - CNN, Guinness Book of Records official website, fox business, International Gemological institute, and several Indian news and articles. I don't understand what the issue is, and the reason for nomination for deletion. Please tell me what it is. They are a credible start up brand from Kerala, India who created a Guinness record winning ring. A growing startup business from a small city in a small state of India, who garnered international media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libinthathappilly (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. Plus, if this discussion is closed as a Soft Deletion, I imagine it will be immediately restored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry informing them of this discussion.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • My search for reliable sources to prove notability come up empty except for that big diamond ring. Maybe we should have an article about the ring instead of the company.
@Libinthathappilly, I understand your assertion that the company should be notable - I think with 150 stores it should be, too. But Wikipedia needs in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet our requirements to prove a business's notability. Why? It's all about reliability. Wikipedia requires that kind of in-depth reliable coverage to make sure we produce a quality, neutral article. So Wikipedia requires we prove the company is notable in order to keep the article. Here are the relevant rules:
Read over these. If we get good references we can keep this article.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Libinthathappilly, If we are to have a page about this business you need to concentrate on quality, rather than quantity, of sources which are about this business, not a publicity-stunt of a record held by one of its products. Don't include every passing mention of the company in the press and certainly don't mention that ring again. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google Books search only seems to find coverage of diamonds from Namibia, which used to be known as South-West Africa (SWA). A Google News search excluding the publicity stunt just shows me one press release and two passing mentions in lists. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swa_Diamonds&oldid=1165445233"