Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RSC Brands


 * 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. Sources apparently exist. Now someone please improve the article. Tone 22:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

RSC Brands

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was deproded without addressing the original concern. It has still been tagged for lacking reliable sources for 5 months. I have been unable to uncover reliable sources myself as well to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Commment. I appreciate that this article has a problematic editing history and that reliable sources haven't been provided so far. This company has been around for a long time and makes some well-known products (Solder Seal, Gunk, Liquid Wrench).  A Google search for "Radiator Specialty Company" produces hundreds of hits at GNews, and thousands at GBooks.  Many of these hits seem to be advertisements, and pay walls (and the Google limit that allows viewing only of the first 100 news stories) hinder examination of these results to find substantial coverage.  But here, for example, is a substantial 2010 New York Times article about RSC's advertising for Liquid Wrench..  The results do suggest that this is an important company in Charlotte, and that its founding family has played an important role in that city's development..   --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We can appropriately have one single decent article. it's an important company, with major well-known products. As Arxiloxos resports, there are plenty of usable sources.  DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no claim to notability. If it is so important, better add some real info (with references), and I may change my opinion. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This seems to be a reliable source. I think this is just a case of having to find reliable sources, rather than dismissing it as non-notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also this and this. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:26, 3 November 2011 (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.