Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Printr

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Printr

Printr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I highly doubt this company is "like over thousands in the world". They seem pretty unique in the niche they are targeting within the 3d marketplace. But they also do not yet have enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is cobbled-together promotional coverage - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists solely to promote the business. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this clearly only exists an advertorial business listing, from going to specifics about the company's business and information to then actually having PR and unconvincing sources, none of this amounts to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 1 October 2016 (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.