Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipolo

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 speedy delete - G5 by GB fan. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chipolo

[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)

Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but no improvements were made and it was moved back into mainspace. Current sourcing includes a single in-depth article on the company, (this one, although I'm not sure how reliable a source it is), with the rest being ads, non-reliable pay sites and brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Passes WP:GNG. Some edits have been made to the page to prove that there are numerous SIGCOV from reliable sources. Malaysian Burger (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Delete An unknown upstart company. As per above, two of their products have been discussed in a recent gadget comparison. However, the company still fails WP:GNG, which requires multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. The only suitable provided source on the company itself is currently the article in Večer. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Mere Google searches and recent edits to the page shows WP:ORGDEPTH as sources that were used are WP:ORGIND. Globesam (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

The used sources would be fine for an article on the gadget but not the company. I've tried to find additional sources about the company but to no avail. If you can provide them, please list them. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of them; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The company is the subject in most of these articles and I believe that conforms with WP:SIRS, what do you think? Globesam (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU note The accounts !voting keep above are confirmed to each other, and based on their behaviour and IP ranges, I am confident that they are both socks of Ugochukwu75. This article would therefore be eligible for G5 deletion, but I guess we're here now. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just nommed it for G5, since they were the only keep !votes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 28 March 2023 (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.