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 snow delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jade carved WuengJonq[edit]

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

This is one of several rather dubious articles (see WP:AN#Problem articles - possible fraud?, permalink) which reads like a high-gloss sales catalogue for artworks from such material, and lacks reliable sources - in short, it raises big red flags with respect to the trinity of core policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Sandstein 13:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a blatant hoax, could be a case for a speedy? Seasider91 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely lacking in verifiability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – apparently part of an extensive Internet advertising campaign for pieces on sale at the author's "web museum". Kanguole 15:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spamming/hoax page created by User:Orionwebmuseum, who's been blocked for spamming. User:Orionandhsu appears to be a sock puppet of User:Orionwebmuseum. -Zanhe (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article written for the subject of Jade carved WuengJonq and has nothing to do with Possible Fraud? guessed by somebody. If someone is really interested in this subject and has different opinions about the contents written for this subject, he should join to edit the contents, instead of deleting the whole subject for interfering readers' rights to understand this subject. Don't make wikipedia to be a blank window books without any contents for readers to select freely. -- Orionandhsu (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a part of a sales pitch. Even if a real term, this article is so bad it would be better to delete it and let someone else recreate it with proper reliable sourcing. Silver seren^C 20:46, 12 July 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.