Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Angel Pearl

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. Kurykh 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Angel Pearl

The Angel Pearl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Very little context, Seems not to be very notable and could possibly even be merged to other related articles, Google search renders no viable sources. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources are found to attribute notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete though there is an Auguste Caillot who wrote a book about Polynesian legends. I haven't been able to track down a copy to see if this subject is substantially mentioned.--Sethacus 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. It's plausible: Caillot and Rollin check out as writers in this area [1]. I tried Googling in French - perle, croix - but no luck: without a specific citation, it goes. Gordonofcartoon 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• This article is confirmed as accurate by my information. Leungsikwah -unsigned edit by new editor Leungsikwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• I find this article to be accurate and informative. Hendrylee - unsigned edit by new editor Hendrylee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 1928 issue of People and Pearls confirms accuracy of article. Sarahtrental - unsigned edit by new editor Sarahtrental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Remarkable how a 1928 article could predict it to be currently owned by a private collector on Grand Cayman Island. Gordonofcartoon 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right. We have 1.original research 2.WP:ILIKEIT and 3. a supposed article in an 80-year-old magazine with no references that, per Google, doesn't even seem to exist. Excuse me if I'm not convinced.--Sethacus 15:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources offered in article. Gsearch does not turn up this legend, but it does turn up a lot of references to a similarly named company. Gsearch en français only gives a half dozen links to the company, and no other hits.
• Delete unless some sources establishing notability are added. Nuttah68 10:51, 20 August 2007 (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.