Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 3D printed weapons and parts


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

List of 3D printed weapons and parts

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

Some discussion on talk page regarding notability several years back. Seems questionable enough to merit a tag for AfD to revisit for further discussion. Shaded0 (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Lists.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 18:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:3D printed firearms exist, and many things listed have their own articles, so its a valid navigational and informational list.  D r e a m Focus  09:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Sources are "likely to exist" isn't a good rationale to Keep this article. But is it realistic to ask participants to review 100+ references? Allowing a final week to consider the status of this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I do think that this Ars Technica article cited in the article does go over the concept as a whole, like:
 * "The prospect of wide-spread 3D handgun printing already has at least one congressman, Steve Israel (D-NY), up in arms to extend and expand the Undetectable Firearms Act to ensure that it covers magazines and other 3D printed components, which would handily squash the "Liberator" and any of its derivatives."
 * "On one hand, it's difficult to envision a practical use-case for a 3D printed firearm, since producing one requires that you own a relatively expensive 3D printer. If you're a US citizen and you're just aiming to have a handgun, it would be far more convenient and affordable to simply amble on down to a place that sells them and buy one. However, there are a growing number of folks concerned that citizen access to firearms will grow progressively more difficult over the next few years and who might be keenly interested in the ability to produce their own, without having to rely on the consent of the government."
 * Even if this Ars Technica article in particular is unsatisfactory, I remain confident that coverage about 3D-printed weaponmaking as a concept is likely to exist. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment see also 3D printed firearm. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The concept is covered in plenty of RS'es, so a list is appropriate. I'm struggling to see the reason for a final relist when no one is arguing against retention--the nom itself seems to be largely procedural. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article's subject appears to meet WP:LISTN, with the Ars Technica piece above and sources like this 3d Printing-specific publisher piece, Slate, and this source by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, all of which discuss 3D printed weapons as a group and then all list some of them, which is WP:LISTN's criteria. I found other examples but I wanted to limit them to three, though I tried to pick three very different sources to show that it's not niche coverage limited to one type of source. - Aoidh (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.