Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoSun Inc.

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GoSun Inc.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Originally AI generated with a bunch of fake sources. When the nonexistent sources, the unsupported information, and a whole lot of empty promotional fluff had been taken out, what remains is a stub article with a few sources mentioning products manufactured by the company, but nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV. Polygnotus (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Procyon117 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like WP:UPE, but sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT exist in various publications. There are numerous entries in Google Books as well but I did not go through them all. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sources that talk about future products do not contribute to the notability of a company. Heck, it would be pretty easy to get some media attention by making some claims about a future product. We need WP:INDEPTH sources about the company itself. Polygnotus (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comes down to sourcing, not products. The guideline can be found at WP:ORGCRIT. The term "future" does not apply to most of its products anyway. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The CNET and Men's Journal reviews appear to fall under the WP:ORGCRIT section on product reviews for tech -- they read like PR-driven reviews. (The MJ review has a purchase link at the bottom that would generate referral income for the publication.) The LevelUp piece is trivial coverage and the Business Insider article is purely press release and company interview-driven. Other sources in article are WP:TRADES or blog posts. I don't see an WP:NCORP pass here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2025 (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.