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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 3D printers[edit]

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

Notability is not temporary. This list can go on indefinitely, lacks very notable printers (e.g. RepRap Prusa), and reads like a commercial catalogue. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. It has been WP:PROD'd before for "WP:NOTCATALOG. This is a list that also violates WP:LISTCRUFT - we do not collect indiscriminate information" Rubdos (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article has been in WP:PROD by User:Gbawden, and that this has been removed by User:DGG (reason: needs sourcing, but we have many such articles). I would want to know what those other many such articles are. I notified both users. Rubdos (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comparisons are or should be limited to those about which we have WP articles or which are discussed substantially in WP articles about the firms.We have many such articles here0--it's standard especially in the computer technology field--the field where WP is best known for comprehensiveness and quality. As such articles go, the selection here is reasonably appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is standard to have such articles though they do take watching. See the articles in Category:Computing comparisons and its many subcategories. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted by DGG, items in the list should have their own stand alone article. This ensures that the list is not endless, and that it does not become endless, with every marginal or unnoticed machine. The list as it is, is OK. Remove red linked entries. Also, maybe remove the different variations of one brand in the list. For example, 'Stratasys' has more than 20 variations - and with that I can agree with the nominator - Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate cataloging of cruft and we are not in the business of promotion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove all variations of a brand (e.g. Stratsys), this would become a Comparison of 3D printer brands, and there wouldn't be a lot to compare anymore. If we keep listings of which there exist articles, would that include e.g. Ultimaker#Ultimaker_2, which is merely a header of a brand? In any case: I think it is wrong to list prices on Wikipedia; would there be objection to removing that column at least? That kind of data is very volatile. Rubdos (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a useful list. We have similar lists comparing operating systems, chat clients, web browsers etc. It presents the information in a concise manner. I do agree with Rubdos that we can remove the price column.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is fundamentally not able to maintain an article like this is any state better than "incomplete and deeply misleading". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2017 (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.