Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald Buddha 46 BC
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
— User:DBigXray, 13:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:CIR (Wikipedia:No original research)