Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atellani

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atellani[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP although left unsourced at this point a WP:BEFORE reveals hits in utter unreliable sources that lack both editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails clearly WP:NCORP CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of developing this page and have a series of reputable sources and well constructed paragraphs I am developing for the page. It would be highly appreciated if the page were not summarily deleted on the basis of how it looks in early stages. - Lexicon Kineticae

@LexiconKineticae, No one ever judges an article based on how they are, we know not to but it’s quixotic to state you have reliable sources to substantiate their notability whereas a WP:BEFORE search invalidates that claim. Celestina007 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability, no significant coverage (even after doing a BEFORE). By the way, isn't there a process to move it back to LexiconKineticae's drafts if they want to improve it? --JBchrch (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch, technically, there is, but with a WP:BEFORE search it doesn’t seem like the organization is going to notable anytime soon so it’s improbable that incubation is the way forward, what is, is the deletion of the article and whenever the company attains notability, then they may ask for a refund. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Celestina007, that makes sense. JBchrch (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NCORP fail. This seems to be a companion article to Vincenzo Maranghi.--- Possibly (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, lacks indepth significant coverage. Namkongville (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnst meet notability and WP:GNG. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a company, with text and references mainly about one crowdfunded product with which it has been associated. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2021 (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.