Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z Corp.


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Z Corp.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This has been speedied 4 times under 2 different names in the last week and the first name was protected for excessive spamming. The 5th speedy was declined for substantially the same content. McWomble (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is asserted but unsourced, making the assertion that it is the "'only company to have developed a full color 3D printing technology'" questionable. According to this source, "'Though others had marketed similar machines before, Z Corp. made a splash with its speed, its low cost, and its ability to print objects in color'" so Z Corp. is not the only nor is it the first company to offer 3d color printing. Furthermore, this article fails WP:SPAM. Finally, the speedy deletes also point to the fact that this article is spam. D ARTH P ANDA duel 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The existence of the an article in the Boston Globe about the company, whatever the content, is evidence in favour of notability, not against it. If one specific claim in the article can't be verified then the solution is to edit it, not to delete the whole article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Following several of Phil Bridger's comments on other AfDs and PRODS, I have come to realize that it is probably better to fix the article than to delete it outright. Therefore, as sources can be found and because the page is already tagged with a, I vote keep.  D ARTH P ANDA duel 19:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see sufficient evidence that this company meets WP:CORP, and the article is almost entirely WP:SPAM. -Verdatum (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger's findings below. -Verdatum (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to meet criteria in WP:CORP.  Peacock (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Basic searches show that this passes WP:CORP with flying colours: Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archive. I've added some of those sources to the article to go with the ones that were already there. There is plenty of factual, non-spammy content here, and anything thought to be overly promotional can easily be fixed by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. I changed my vote accordingly. -Verdatum (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2008 (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.