Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pine64


 * 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. Or no consensus at worst.  Sandstein  08:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Pine64

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Some Pine64 products are notable; the organization is not. I cannot find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" on the subject of the organization. WP:ORGCRITE Sources in the article are primary, or original research, or coverage of products. The bits of history can be included with notable product pages. Yae4 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Two advocates for keeping the article but no sources provided that would establish the notability of the company, not their products, have been offered. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Yae4 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Yae4 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Yae4 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Hong Kong,  and California.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The primary source stuff needs to be cleaned up (which is immaterial here) but there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) for the A64 and other Pine64 products without their own pages to warrant an dedicated article. czar  06:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , Can you link to 2 or 3 reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the organization (not just the products)? I could not find one. Edit: An organization does not inherit notability from its products: WP:INHERITORG -- Yae4 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is plenty of coverage about several related products (linked in my diff above), we cover them in a single article. If the article has to be rescoped back down to single-board computers that's another fine WP:ATD. czar  22:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Redirect to "Pine A64" with content similar to this link from, and as suggested by,  seems like a reasonable alternative. Consistent with: Pine64 is now listed in Template  as a Device. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of the articles seem to talk about the company and its products in the same article, rather than just the products themselves. Since sigcov is being given to the company as well, the article meets notability guidelines. Rlink2 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They talk about the company as in brief mentions of the source of product., same question: can you link to 2 or 3 reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the organization? -- Yae4 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Pine64, founded in October 2015, is based in California. The company makes inexpensive Linux-based single board ARM computers that cost $15 to $20. It also makes an $89 Linux laptop called “Pinebook,” which runs on the Pine A64 board. A few Linux distributions, including KDE Neon, run on Pine A64." The article includes analysis from Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group. The article notes: "Pine64’s entire product line appears to target developers, Enderle observed. Since developers buy products, this product line kind of represents that its users are among the elite few who would know how to use them. 'Think of them like you would a class ring or a secret handshake. Having one means you are part of a group with a very specific skill set,' he said. That does not reflect poorly on the products, however. This approach might be very successful for the company. The developers really get to know their customers. In turn, those customers know the developers are focused on them. So using the products means they belong to the group, Enderle noted." This source passes Notability (organizations and companies) through providing history and background about the company, through focusing on "Pine64's entire product line", and through analysis from an independent analyst about the company's product line.  The article provides an overview of Pine64's shipments of products for developers. The article notes that the company began with shipping "the crowd-funded $32 A64 SBC". It notes, "The A64 board, with a 1.2 GHz quad-core A64 Arm SoC – Allwinner's fourth generation after entering the market with a splash a decade ago with the A10 – formed the basis of the PineBook in 2017, and later the PinePhone." The article further says, "Now, slowly, the company's second-generation devices are trickling out." It discusses shipments of the PineBook Pro and the PinePhone Pro. The article does not focus on any one product. It provides an overview of the shipments of several of Pine64's products, so this source passes Notability (organizations and companies). There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pine64 to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Comment. IMO, these are brief mentions of the organization - trivial or incidental coverage. They are not " Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation " of the company or organization. See WP:ORGDEPTH In your quotes, the focus is on the product line. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article should be scoped to the product line, which we already established is notable. That the article needs cleanup is not a matter for AfD. czar  20:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider both sources to provide significant coverage about the company. The first source provides significant coverage about the company's history and product line which I have detailed above. The second source discusses the company's product line in terms of its shipments. I consider coverage about the company's product line to be coverage of what the company is making and doing, so this is coverage about the company itself and meets Notability (organizations and companies). If the article was about only one product, then it would not establish notability for the company. But these sources provide an overview about the company's work as a whole (its product line) so do in my view meet Notability (organizations and companies) in providing significant coverage about the company. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Compare and contrast these sources with a few used for Purism_(company), a somewhat similar company:   This is significant coverage of the organization, placing it in context of the industry, comparing it with other companies in the industry, as required for wiki-notability: provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation " of the company or organization. I agree the Linux Insider article gives a little of that for Pine64, but IMO it does not reach the threshold, and is primarily focused on the "teased" product. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.