Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashForge


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

FlashForge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Criteria for speedy deletion A7 is contested, thus requesting discussion. Jusjih (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 06:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 06:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted because:

--AAAAA (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?ei=lB5hWrPlGcKvzwLw_YmwDQ&q=Flashforge&oq=Flashforge&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1l2j0i20i263k1j0i20i264k1j0l6.342987.344874.0.345747.10.10.0.0.0.0.153.848.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.848...46j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i20i263i264k1j0i46k1j0i10k1.0.hG4WDfe0VnQ
 * 1. The brand has over 2 Million results in Google, as you can see here:


 * 2. The FlashForge FINDER 3D Printer model is one of the top 10 3D Printers of 2018, as you can see here: https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470038,00.asp


 * 3. Four of their 3D Printers are rated over 8 on 3D hubs, as you can see here: https://www.3dhubs.com/3d-printers


 * 4. The Flashforge Finder is number 9 in the list of top 3D Printers in 3dhubs: https://www.3dhubs.com/best-3d-printer-guide


 * 5. If the FlashForge page is deleted, why do all the other 3D Printer Manufactures are not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_printer_manufacturers


 * 6. There are not thousands or even hundreds of 3D Printer Manufacturers in the world. In wikipedia's own List of 3D Printer Manufacturers there are only 30 Manufacturers. I believe that Wikipedia should have an entry for every single one. 3D Printing is still a nascent industry and one day it will probably be of substantial importance in Industry. Every single 3D Printer Manufacturer that exists right now has the potential of becoming one of the main manufacturers in the future.

--AAAAA (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 7. FlashForge has MANY patents. Run of the mill companies have no patents or maybe a couple.
 * Delete -- fails WP:NCORP & WP:CORPDEPTH. It's WP:TOOSOON for an article, per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - wholly promotional...Mean as custard (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete it does not meet the requirements for inclusion in the WP:NCORP policy. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - it is a very recognized and widespread brand. If you search for "3D Printer" on google, (Which I did: I bought one) many of the seach results will be printers produced by FlashForge. The article may be bad, but it's still a very notable topic and should be kept so it can be expanded by others later.  L293D  ( ✉ ) 15:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find any independent reliable sources, what makes you say it's a very notable topic? Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Their products speak for themselves. If you search "3D Printer" on amazon, more than ten percent are FlashForge 3D Printers. Other than that I must say you're right that there are not many references about it.  L293D  ( ✉ ) 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, but which policy are you basing your comment on? I can't see anything that says popular products are inherently notable, and all the policies I have read say there have to be independent reliable sources for a company to be notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: So that Pontificalibus's list of potential sources can be discussed.
 * Delete No indications of notability, complete SPAM, fails GNG and WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP  HighKing++ 15:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. --Pontificalibus 08:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy Let anyone interested fix the article in draftspace. It's not ready for article space although there is some coverage of the company and its products. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy - At present, the article is a poorly written promotional brochure with no independent references to support notability. However, other comments above indicate sources are available.--Rpclod (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I don't think that usefying a poorly written promotional brochure with no independent references is a good idea. If the company is notable (of which I'm not convinced) then a non-COI editor would eventually create it -- in a neutral fashion and with proper references. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. Userfying spam is not what AfD is for. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why can't we decided whether it's notable in this discussion? Once that is determined, the article can either be improved or deleted. I see no purpose in either userfying it, or deleting and recreating it. If we don't determine notability now, then that's a big disincentive for a non-COI editor to recreate it, since it might subsequently be renominated and deleted. --Pontificalibus 12:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider this subject to be non-notable, hence my !vote above. I was making a point how little if makes sense to userfy the current content, i.e.: none at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment on Pontificalibus's list of potential sources. All of the references are reviews of one product or another manufactured and sold by Flashforge. None of the references provide any in-depth information on the company itself. Notability is not inherited. If the company was notable, it should be possible to find references that meet the criteria for estalishing notabiltiy and none have been produced to date.  HighKing++ 18:30, 7 February 2018 (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.