Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog-gone Sauce


 * 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   keep.  Sandstein  10:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Dog-gone Sauce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

repeatedly recreated promotional article for non notable product.  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Depth of coverage The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Audience The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary. The Hal Apeno (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the sources it looks like multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable media sources.  Therefore passes WP:GNG.  Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am the articles creater and had this discussion before it was republished. As described on the page Notability (organizations and companies) under the section Primary Criteria there are 2 sections to meet and the company meets them both as I have reviewed below.
 * All of the articles that have been referenced have a depth of coverage of the company and are not merely trivial coverage as described.
 * There is an article from Canada so it meets the criteria with at least one international article and shows a strong indication of notability.
 * There are articles from the hot sauce media as well as animal related media so it shows this is not of limited interest.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, the article is somewhat promotional and needs editing accordingly. But AfD is not for cleanup, and this squeaks past the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - This is probably just about notable. Some of the sources are not independent; others have a limited audience - the argument that there is coverage from hot sauce related sources and animal related sources doesn't really work when the article is about a hot sauce company that helps animals (all it shows is that it might be notable to people with a specific interest, not to people generally). Nevertheless, there is enough coverage from broad sources that are at least regional to suggest some kind of notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.