Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protocol Labs

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 redirect to InterPlanetary File System. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol Labs[edit]

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

Company is only mentioned in passing in the sources I have been able to find. The provided sources have only a few mentions of the company in what is a longer article on the topic of the industry generally. For example, getting a comment from the CEO and then mentioning the company. The product is discussed while the company is not. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very short and does not cover anything outside what is mentioned in Forbes or TechCrunch. (I am the author.) Endercase (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to InterPlanetary File System. Insufficient significant sources for WP:GNG. One sentence does not make a good article. — Za wl 18:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawl: it is my understanding that per Wikipedia:Notability as long as there is enough "Significant coverage" such that no original research is needed in article creation to extract the content in the article; creation is valid. The article is currently marked as a stub per WP:ATD. IMO the subject is above the standards that set forth by WP:SNOWFLAKE even if the article itself could use expansion per WP:PERFECTION. The article as it stands links to the one you suggest it be redirected to and as such I don't see a need to redirect. Can you please show me exactly where in the article WP:DON'T PRESERVE applies? Thank you for your time, Endercase (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to InterPlanetary File System; not independently notable. The subject of target article may not be notable itself, but there's clearly no need for two articles on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 2 September 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.