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. Please discuss any merge on the article talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabber[edit]

Delete - article has been tagged for notability and verifiability for months, does not appear to be notable or verifiable. Otto4711 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

112,000 hits at Google. I've quickly added a few links. Paul Beardsell 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - weak but has promise. These devices do exist, y'know! And they are going to be one of the more important technologies of the century. Perhaps article should be renamed to one of the redirection links now pointing to it. The article requires improvement but that is what WP is all about! I think we can fix the deletionist problem by requiring the deletion proposer to fully justify the deletion - the burden of making the argument should be theirs. It's too easy to wander about slapping delete tags here, there and everywhere. Paul Beardsell 02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Merge To Desktop manufacturing which has 19 million Google hits and is a descriptive term rather than a neologism.See[1] where they also refer to these as "3-D printers, rapid prototypers, and stereolithographs." I have not heard this neologism, but 3-d fabrication machines have been built and are an emerging technology of great importance for prototyping. Sometimes called the "Santa Claus" machine. Edison 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)editedEdison 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend that the article contents be lost? I agree with you: "great importance"! What about a rename to desktop fabricator? Paul Beardsell 11:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be an article under some title for 3-d fabricators. They exist,they are used, the scale and range of material they can fabricate are increasing. Find an industry-standard bname and move the info. Edison 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Peta 06:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until shown to pass WP:NEO. MER-C 07:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If neologism is the issue, we can use one of the many alternative, less hip, names. Several redirects to fabber. Paul Beardsell 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be already established enough (you cannot expect that a name for a very special piece of technology will have 10M+ Google hits)--Ioannes Pragensis 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge On its own it's no more than a dictionary definition. Xiner (talk, email) 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs a better name though. --Gwern (contribs) 19:33 11 January 2007 (GMT) 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the more descriptive desktop fabricator. I don't like desktop manufacturing as a rename because I think that implies mass production as the primary use, whereas a home fabber could be used to make art or a one-off chocolate fantasy castle for a dinner party. Notability: I don't know of an academic article about the potential impact, but economic (home consumer goods) and intellectual property (design share/theft) ramifications come to mind. Possible link to add to the page:

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10922-desktop-fabricator-may-kickstart-home-revolution.html --selkins 16:24, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Merge with redirect to Solid freeform fabrication. Robin Z 16:08, 12 January 2007 (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.