Deletion of Mary Tudor pearl

Comment: I am somewhat taken aback that none of the comments so far have covered the blatant commercialized language in the article, as written.  As I tried to make abundantly clear, the entire article, except its title, is written to promote the pearl that recently toured London. (Sure there are news articles about it, but See  and .) But the problem is that there are two separate pearls. Are we needing three articles? One for pearl of Kuwait, one for La Peregrina pearl, and one for Mary Tudor pearl? That would be "fair" by splitting off all of the claims and provenance stuff into the specific pearl articles, while the historical object gets its own page I guess? Modifying it is possible, but my opinion is severe curtailment until the sources roll in. The Mary Tudor pearl article is full of speculation as it is... no independent news article says all of these things, just your beloved encyclopedia. If some think the new pearl needs some space here in an article on Wikipedia, fine, but it needs a new title, sources to back up its claims, and cross-references to the controversial subject. Right now the encyclopedia looks to be making all the guesses for the pearl, while the news articles report the lack of provenance
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WHYN||WP:SPIP)