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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleph Objects (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)

They don't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Everybody and their dog are making 3D fused filament printers these days. Novelty is in no way implicit, nor does it imply WP:Notability. If they're notable, it might be for the licensing stance, but even that doesn't seem significantly distinctive from other printer makers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Current article does not have any sources that remotely suggest notability. CorporateM (Talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• no vote I am owner of this company, so I'm not voting, but I thought I'd chime in. The present article looks like it was pulled from our website, and not many secondary sources. That doesn't mean there aren't any. As for being notable, our company produced the first hardware *ever* certified by the Free Software Foundation (who incidentally had a large role in the existence of wikipedia). Our printer is Editor's Choice of both PC Mag and Tom's Hardware, both major tech publications. We have also had many many reviews and articles over the last few years. We have been the *front page article* of the major newspaper the Denver Post, twice, plus other articles and blog posts there. We have a list of over 100 media references on our website here: https://www.lulzbot.com/news/in-the-media Jebba (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I don't understand just what it is that the FSF have certified here. Was it in respect of the printer's ability to produce parts? Or an open sourced ability for others to produce printers of this design? I'm also puzzled (other than US-centricity) as to why the FSF have singled this machine out over the RepRap, which has been pushing an open source agenda for ten years. I just don't see the FSF certification as being significant re notability – any issue of primacy is a very tenuous one about when it was recognised by the FSF, rather than a substantial one about Aleph being first to adopt such an approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know about FSF certifcation, I suggest reading about it on their site. (Meh, ok, a search of lulzbot on site:fsf.org turns up over 1,500 hits....) Anyway, here's the original article about the first certification they did. There are a lot more on their site of more recent products: http://www.fsf.org/news/hardware-certification-aleph-objects-lulzbot-3d-printer Jebba (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the very next tab I went to after this (I regularly search google for news about us), was ComputerWorld, a major tech publication of long standing. Their 3D printer reviewer writes: "the Lulzbot Mini remains my current benchmark for judging rival printers until a better one comes along". Just sayin'... http://www.computerworld.com/article/2910250/review-the-da-vinci-junior-is-the-easy-bake-oven-of-3d-printers.html Also, does market share count? I know you say everyone in their dog is making printers, but are all of them covered in market research reports such as the #1 in the industry Wohlers Report? Plus we get coverage in all the other ones covering the industry. Your dog printers aren't in there, I assure you (unfortunately, these reports aren't gratis). Jebba (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make my own Lulzbot? Because I can make my own RepRap or Rostock. I rather expected that to be part of the FSF certification when I first read it, but it seems not. (I've never seen this as a useful thing to do, but it's a popular principle here, just down the road from Bath) Could {some long list of 3D printers} be similarly certified, if the FSF chose to? (ie do they meet the same criteria) Why did the FSF choose this one first? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be OT... Yes, you can make your own LulzBot. We believe it is the most free/libre/open consumer product ever released. All development is done in the open. Our internal directories sync to the public every 30 minutes. We have over 100 gigs of data publicly accessible of released and development projects, visible at these sites: http://download.lulzbot.com/ http://devel.lulzbot.com/ We also have other various code up on github: http://github.com/alephobjects/ We released what was the first "full stack" release of a RepRap based on Prusa's famous design (back in 2011). Josef Prusa himself said it was the best one out there at the time. We publish everything, including production schedules, plans, daily production spreadsheets, the layout of our assembly lines, how we build wire harnesses, everything. I don't know of any company that comes close, tbh (but they may exist, I'm just realizing now how awesome the Spanish company BQ is). You can see our assembly line procedures for the LulzBot Mini here, for example: https://ohai-kit.alephobjects.com/group/mini/ As for the certification, perhaps read up on it. They can't just certify "RepRap". There is an audit performed, and we are required to build conforming with that. They can spot check, and even can get audited themselves. This is a formal certification (think "UL" or similar). We got it first because we did the work to get it all worked through. It was the FSF's first, and they move.real.slow. I assure you they take this very seriously. They know me from previous projects, so that likely helped assure them I would go through the whole process. Other RepRap systems could be FSF certified, but not necessarily all of them. In general, systems that are RAMBo based most likely conform with RYF, but they aren't certified unless the FSF reviews their gear to be what they say it is, and the manufacturer signs a document saying they will agree to RYF requirements. Jebba (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just piling on this wall of text. We also run one of largest 3D printer clusters in the world. This isn't a one off event. We are running 135 printers in a cluster (plus we have 10-20 in other various spots in the building). This cluster runs 24/5 and produces 75kg of finished parts per *day*. Here's an older (over a year ago) article about it: http://www.gizmag.com/tour-aleph-objects-lulzbot-factory-hq/31024/ There's other articles too. Tis notable? Jebba (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The current article fails to demonstrate notability. If the article is to stay, then it needs to be a better article. Jebba - fancy reworking any of it as a draft (maybe under your own userspace)? I'm happy to "adopt" this (and copyedit) in any way that can help avoid COI concerns. In particular, it needs someone who is familiar with the subject to write an article with editorial narrative such that it explains why the Lulzbot is significant in what is now a crowded marketplace.

WP:Notability isn't that important - it's a simplistic measure that WP uses because it has to define some vaguely objective measure, but it's a matter of wikilawyering to make any article pass it, if you throw enough sources at it. Personally I'm not that fussed about it; a "notable" article can still be a bad article. Clearly in this case there are enough printed sources citeable to pass that hurdle. The real question is (and one I can't answer) is why does this printer matter? I certainly wouldn't support a view that, "each and every 3D printer receiving a review article is WP:Notable". So what does Aleph / Lulzbot have over and above these? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article published today: http://readwrite.com/2015/04/16/lulzbot-mini-reliable-3d-printer I guess one notable feature pointed out there is it actually works.  ;) Anyway, if you want to delete it, we'll be back. Jebba (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we're going to be an episode on How_It's_Made on April 30th. So viewers there may want to look us up on wikipedia.... Jebba (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: notability, you state that you wouldn't support "each and every 3D printer receiving a review article is WP:Notable". Isn't that a straw man? I didn't realize anyone was arguing for that. How about companies that have *hundreds* of article citations and many many reviews spanning a few years from industry publications to major media? Would that work? If so, why not take down the "notability" notice you put on the page? Jebba (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Color me unimpressed. If there are indeed "hundreds of article citations" about Aleph Objects, why hasn't Jebba posted some solid, reliable ones? There are numerous business publications that qualify, and the ones he's chosen to contribute to this AfD discussion are a combination of press releases and tech blogs. The one solid source I've seen is the Computerworld article, and that -- like a bunch of others -- are about products, not about the subject of the article. (An article on this LulzBot printer may well be sustainable, by contrast.)Weak Keep: I'm slightly more impressed with the links Jebba came up with from the Denver Post and NPR. They clear the bar for the company ... barely. (I'd still look more favorably on an article for LulzBot, for which there are far more sources.) Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't have my login here at work, but this is jebba. I get your point on the relevance of the LulzBot printer versus the company itself. I was just listing about the printer before. I didn't link to any press releases above, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The LulzBot articles included Tom's Guide, PC Magazine, Make Magazine, Forbes, Bloomberg, Fox Business Network, Independent UK, etc. and many others on the URL linked above: https://www.lulzbot.com/news/in-the-media Note, that isn't an exhaustive list either. But I realize you want some more about the company itself, not the products the company makes. Here's some on the company: http://iq.intel.com/how-to-bring-3d-printing-to-the-masses/ http://companyweek.com/company-profile/aleph-objects We have been in both the print and electronic versions of the Denver Post multiple times. The Denver Post is the 9th largest newspaper in the USA, per wikipedia (List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation). These two articles were on the FRONT PAGE of the print edition: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22513164/3d-printing-goes-big-help-lovelands-aleph-and http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_27785837/3-d-printing-tech-gives-tortoise-new-life Here's some more about the company and how we operate: http://opensource.com/life/14/3/interview-Jeff-Moe-Aleph-Objects Here is a visit from US Congressman Jared Polis covered by the media, who has made multiple trips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h78mccaCWqM . (US Senator Michael Bennet has also visited, fwiw.) Perhaps primary source, but here's a note on the White House's website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/23/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-over-240-million-new-stem-commitmen Here's radio and web coverage on the local National Public Radio's affiliate: http://www.kunc.org/post/open-source-hardware-companies-blend-altruism-bottom-line Do you need more? 50.205.5.74 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one today from Forbes "LulzBot 3D Printers: A Glimpse Into The Future of American Manufacturing". http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2015/04/30/lulzbot-3d-printers-a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-american-manufacturing/ 50.205.5.74 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Jebba (talk · contribs) and 50.205.5.74 (talk · contribs). The two articles from The Denver Post provide detailed coverage of the subject. The KUNC article also discusses Aleph Objects directly and in detail.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aleph Objects to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It seems to be at least somewhat notable, but the Lulzbot seems more notable. Perhaps the article should be about the Lulzbot with a section on the company, and not vice-versa.Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 20:09, 2 May 2015 (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.