 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Own article
editShould be enough here to qualify for its own page. Changing from redirect. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Returned to redirect as no WP:RS cited, a trademark notice doesn't really work. Also much of the content was copy/pasted from another article with no attribution in violation of Wikipedia policy. Vsmith (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC).
If an article is needed, a possible reference might be from Mineralium Deposita, Volume 45, Number 2 (2010), 201-205, DOI: 10.1007/s00126-009-0262-2. Vsmith (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Trademark, this is similar to the Tanzanite article, in terms of trademark status as well as mineralogical status. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Note, some of this discussion on the talk page:
- True, some of the content was from Diaspore page, but only the stuff that pertains to Zultanite. There were several changes, especially to the sidebar, and also a new image was added.
- Zultanite has a trademark on its name for use in commerce, but this is not different from Tanzanite.
- Being one form of Diaspore, is similar to the gemstone Tsavorite being a form of Grossular, whereas Viluite is a non-recognized variety (or non-gemstone-named variety).
- You mentioned a copy-and-paste from some other source, but I can't find that using copyscape. Could you let me know where that is from and I can change or seek permission to use the source?
Restored content
editFollowing up on the discussion here, I just restored the content that was removed earlier. Apparently a banned editor added some of it, but I don't see why this article should be deleted.108.178.117.223 (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- When an editor is banned, it means that the community has determined that broader problems with their participation outweigh the benefits of their editing. In this case, they relate to an editor who has consistently misrepresented sources, fabricated material from sources, and invented sources, and whose edits and articles should be removed. WilliamH (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)