Deletion of Emerald Buddha 46 BC

Comment: per . I don´t see anything in this article which could be merged with Emerald Buddha. The text is unsourced and incomprehensible
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:REDUNDANTFORK)

Comment: Appears to me as original research since it does not cite any source either in English or Cambodian. The Cambodian author has added a caption section, where s/he mentions the source of this information from her Grandmother. Hence it can be safe to call it as a myth or . Emerald Buddha already exists and s/he has also linked this article with it. She possibly considers both items different but I cannot support this article without valid sources. Also I agree that the Cambodian author has  problem in writing and understanding English, which may explain why she is disregarding the talk page warnings. Please keep a watch to ban the user if they don't pay heed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:CIR)