Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Gold

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, referenced almost entirely to primary sources with little evidence of media coverage shown to get it over WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Three of the five footnotes here are the company's own website about itself, one more is an entry in a business directory that isn't a notability builder, and I've also already stripped a citation to the company's own LinkedIn page -- which means there's only one acceptable footnote here, an article in the Indiana Economic Digest, but that isn't enough all by itself.
The even bigger problem here is that this has been flagged for relying too much on primary sources since 2009, with the Indiana Economic Digest source being the only new source that's ever been added to the article in the entire 13 years since. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage than I've got can find enough legitimate sourcing to get this over the bar -- but after 13 years it can't just keep sitting around in this badly-sourced state anymore, and it's time to pull the "fix it or lose it" trigger. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Indiana. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are a number of news-like sites that turn up when you Google the company, but they all turn out to be PR-based or simply unreliable. There is no *significant* coverage in independent, reliable sources that I can see - the company does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly a company going about its business and producing branded products, but notability is less clear. There is this article about the other firm from whom the Red Gold brand name was purchased in 1970, this 2010 article about the firm's sourcing from local farms, and more recently some coverage such as this contains some details about how their business was coping during COVID, but I think more detailed coverage would be needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2022 (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.