Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artec 3D

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artec 3D[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The product is notable; the company is not. Trying to ge t wo articles when one would do is a common technique of promotional editing. So is trying to put all the possible execs in the infobox. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mention because this is still questionable for solid independent notability and, even though the article may be sourced, it is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Save In my opinion this article is notable. The company and its technology are discussed in numerous top-tier media outlets, which are used as sources on the page. Per the Wikipedia:Notability WP:ORGSIG page one factor for notability is the impact of the company on culture, history, society and science. The company's involvement in historic preservation should also lend to its notability.One example can be found on the 3D printing page - and another is its involvement in the homo naledi excavation (http://www.spar3d.com/news/related-new-technologies/vol14no7-scanning-for-human-ancestors/) These are just two examples of this. user:swelch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swelch12 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit. It seems to be notable, and cleaning the article up is all that is needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the product, shapify, that is notable. There should either be an article on it, or on the copany, but not both. The product would seem to be the much more likely search term. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment look at the name of the article creator, obvious COI. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 20 April 2016 (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.