Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Labs (company)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Star Labs (company)

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

Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NCORP isn’t met. A before search links me to a bunch of mere announcements and press releases. WP:ORGDEPTH is non existent as well. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies,  and United Kingdom. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello! I explained why I wanted to create this page at . But let me explain it again here. First, this page was already linked by this page, List_of_laptop_brands_and_manufacturers - Other brands. I don't belong to this company, Star Labs. And the page name "Star Labs (company)" makes sense to me. Because there is already this kind of page name, Purism (company). The reason why I wanted to create this company's Wikipedia page is because this company is open source, Linux, open firmware friendly company. There are already some presences on it. For example, there are devices (companies) using the open source firmware coreboot. See . In the listed ones, there are Wikipedia pages of Chrome OS devices, System76, Purism (company). But Star Labs didn't have the Wikipedia page. So, I wanted it. Junaruga (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment — Please can you show us reliable sources that shows WP:ORG met? Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Let me read the document first. Junaruga (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are the reliable sources.
 * This company's legal page by UK government: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10602146
 * Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/05/15/linux-laptop-benchmark-dell-xps-13-star-labtop-intel-i7-8550u/
 * Today: https://www.today.it/best/tecnologia/computer-e-tablet/star-lite-mk-recensione-notebook-linux.html
 * omg!ubuntu!: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/05/starbook-mk-v-linux-laptop-specs-price
 * Phoronix: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=StarBook-Mk-V-Coreboot
 * Fossbytes Media: https://fossbytes.com/star-labs-linux-laptop/
 * Linux Magazine: https://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/StarLabs-has-Released-Another-Linux-Laptop
 * Linux Today: https://www.linuxtoday.com/news/star-labs-unveil-byte-mk-i-first-amd-powered-mini-linux-pc-with-coreboot-support/
 * GamingOnLinux: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2022/04/star-labs-byte-announced-as-their-first-mini-pc-powered-by-amd-ryzen/ Junaruga (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another reason why the page name Star Labs (company) is good. Because there are already similar page names Starlab, S.T.A.R. Labs on Wikipedia. I want to distinguish this page with those pages. Junaruga (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

A quick source assessment:

Most of these sources fall in the same bucket: product reviews that say little or nothing about the company otherwise. So product details are (over)sourced, but there is little from which to build a well-rounded article about the company. The claim about software freedom doesn't seem to be supported by the sources used, but otherwise what's here is well cited. The product seems well-known enough that there should be some reliable coverage of the company, but it isn't here. Borderline. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  14:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Thank you for checking the sources! I can understand your points. You are right for the expression "software freedom" not seen in the source. Sorry for that. I referred Purism (company) to create the Star Labs page, and referred the expression. Maybe it's better to delete the expression in the Star Labs (company).
 * Now I understand the sources cover about the product, but don't the company. Here is another article by Forbes. I think this article covers a little bit more about the company.
 * Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2020/07/16/pay-attention-to-linux-laptop-company-star-labs/
 * Calls the company "Linux hardware company" and "Linux laptop company".
 * Has a story about the company's person "Sean Rhodes".
 * Says the company was founded in 2016 in a pub.
 * > The product seems well-known enough that there should be some reliable coverage of the company, but it isn't here.
 * I agree. I couldn't find any other reliable sources about the company so far. Junaruga (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * decentralize.today: https://dt.gl/star-labs-you-close-your-curtains/
 * Explains the company with a privacy? Junaruga (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
 * Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, none of the "reviews" provide more than a brief mention of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom's analysis of lack of coverage/depth. Product reviews, which is most of what the sources are, is not a viable means to establish notability. Also,  HighKing touched on this, but the Forbes sources mentioned to establish SIGCOV/RS are WP:FORBESCON. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2022 (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.