Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital materials


 * 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   merge to Materials science. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Digital materials

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Trademarked non-notable neologism. Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete: This article appears to be a coatrack to promote one particular manufacturer's method of 3D printing. Although well cited and backed up with reliable sources, the sources that are not specifically published by Objet Geometries appear to be more generic articles on the science of composite materials, and not about this specific technology. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 Delete Article is superficially impressive, but no real substance to claims of notability. Lack of indepth coverage in reliable sources. The Objet Geometries article needs looking at as well, the only independent "source" in that article is a 404 for me and is therefore officially "dodgy". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Trim back and Merge into materials science. There's some potentially valuable material in these citations, even if this article has some problems with lack of context and COI.  Writing off published sources completely - I'm talking about the peer-reviewed ones - doesn't feel quite right. §everal⇒|Times 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective merge and redirect per Several Times. The current article is indeed coatrack spam promoting a particular business, and contains meaningless, promotional puffery (The way the DM code defines a 3D phase structures is analogous to the way the genetic code in living organisms is responsible for dictating the characteristics of a living organism.) but there are enough technical details to be preserved somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, that "somewhere" is hard to define, as Wikipedia's coverage of 3D printing and related technologies is already somewhat scattershot (see rapid prototyping, stereolithography, additive manufacturing, etc). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I think the best merge target in these cases is the most generic topic. Some of the other 3D printing-related articles may also be good merge candidates - at least until they have more sources. §everal⇒|Times 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just plain delete Sounds impressive, but, after a medium-depth read, it's just promoting and describing one company's particular products, methods and terminology.And then there are bio links to "people interested in this topic" !. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to 3D printing per Several Times. I'm not opposed to tidbits ending up in different articles, but the scattered state of 3D printing shouldn't be a reason to delete this article. Obviously, not everything needs to be merged, but if only parts are merged and then a redirect can be made, it's a win. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2012 (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.