Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to COVID-19 scams. Content can be merged from behind the redirect if there is editorial desire to do so. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc.[edit]

Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Almost all of the sources are primary. The sources that aren't are on a single issue and there are only two of them. There seems to be a lack of significant coverage online, and I'm concerned about the coverage of living people (the founder and medical director) that is based almost entirely on primary sources. Bilby (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the original page creator, I think it's important to keep an encyclopaedic record for some of the bigger COVID-19 scammers, both for purposes of historical record and public service. I am happy to make any changes suggested to make this article more suitable for inclusion.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is in an okay state imo, and there even are a few more sources to be found here and here. I can see where the concerns about primary sourcing on living people are coming from, but I don't think it's a problem here since searching for the CEO's name actually brings up more non-primary results again, for example here, here and here. An alternative would be to merge into COVID-19 scams and redirect there. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the sources your found about the company are still on the single issue. The problem is that there needs to be coverage about the organisation in general rather than on a specific topic. Merging might be a possible solution. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Since the coverage about the incident is pretty solid though, it could also remain an independent article but being renamed to be about the incident, not the company. Like e.g. "Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc. Covid-Treatment Scam" (although that specific title sounds a bit clumsy). --LordPeterII (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might work, but it isn't really substantial coverage, either. Perhaps a couple of sentences in COVID-19 scams? The secondary sources so far are two local papers, a brief mention in Money.com, and what looks like a group blog. A search on Google News turns up a bit more, but there's just not a lot of coverage. - Bilby (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I made some minor edits. I don't see any major problems with the article, but it won't ruin my week if this gets deleted. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldest of bold third relists for some more input on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2021 (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.