Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated Technology Laboratories, Inc


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Accelerated Technology Laboratories, Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. No indications of any significant coverage to be found anywhere. Coverage that is found consists largely of the company's own press releases. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying my best to write a fair, wiki page and instead of continuing to attack my work for trying to document the small companies in my area could you please help me point me in the right direction to address the issues. I have spend a lot of time trying to research this business and do not know what I am doing wrong? You mention "significant coverage" what information do I need to provide? I had a friend look it over and found an article from NVIDA that mention this business and I have tried to make this wiki page fair and neutral as possible. Please help me. MajesticWriter (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia - I'm sorry you're finding it a bit rough. What the article needs is a few (say, three) reliable sources that prove beyond doubt that the company is notable, that is to say, that it is obviously newsworthy. An article in, say, the New York Times that materially discusses the company would be perfect. A press release from the company itself doesn't help, because of course every company believes itself to be worth talking about. Hope this helps a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Chriswick and thank you for the welcome and advice, so basically, I need to surf the web and find articles that talk about the company but are not r=from the business itself? Right? Was the one from NVIDIA more suitable? I do believe I did see one from the New York times. A big thank you, it has been rough, I was up all last night. Plus this coding here is confusing but I am trying to catch on. MajesticWriter (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The "mention" of ATL in the NVIDIA article is not significant coverage. It is a brief mention in passing of one company that happens to be using NVIDIA's technology in an interesting manner.  The main topic of the article is NVIDIA's technology itself, not ATL's use of it.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Could you please just delete the page I give up, thank you. p.s. the "brief" mention was about 1/3 of the story..... MajesticWriter (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WikiDan61 is correct, the NVIDIA article is not significant coverage because it only seeks an opinion from this organization and is not about this organization. The other sources are derived from the organization's self publications. This organization does not meet notability criteria. I appreciate your effort MajesticWriter - Wikipedia will be here if you choose to return another time. You can get guidance before you begin by talking to people at the WP:TEAHOUSE. In lots of other ways real people will volunteer to help you.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Blue Rasberry, I appreciate your response and appriciate you taking the time to explain it, instead, of just writing a quick response and leaving me wondering "what I did wrong." After looking over the web I could not find enough information either and also agree it does need to be deleted. You do have to excuess me I am a new user who just started using Wikipedia for the first time and had to ask a friend of mine to give me adivce. WikiDan I do appreciate your knowledge of Wikipeida too and ask to take the time to explain things further and in more detail to the new users, I see where you are coming from because of other users who will ruin the experiance for all if not carefully watched, but please make sure it don't scare off the ones who want to contribute and make them feel unwanted within the first day. I have learned a lot from my adventure and look forward to my next attemp at a wiki page, but will first take your advice and slow down. :) now for the four taps MajesticWriter (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)




 * Comment Hello, I honestly believe this wiki page should stay alive, this is a company from North Carolina that has made some exceptional achievements and while they may not have the most "significant coverage" this should not mean they are not Wikipedia material. I thank you for your time.   ℳajesticѠriter t@lk  21:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment We need more, not fewer editors. Unfortunately I think too many do WP:LAWYERING instead of helping new editors.  All too many times I have been read the rules while getting absolutely zero help even though I did everything except getting down on my hands and knees begging for help. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The coverage cited in the article does not establish notability because it is not by reliable independent published sources, or mentions the company only in passing.  Sandstein   10:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the absence of any improvement over the last few weeks, and with no sign of substantial independent sources, the subject does not reach the threshold of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. A Google search for ("accelerated technology laboratories") turned up lots of directory-type listings and a few passing mentions in articles on other subjects, but nothing that looked like in-depth coverage: the closest thing that I could find was the NVIDIA piece, discussed above.  A Google News search for the same terms turned up no hits at all.  There doesn't appear to be enough coverage by independent sources to confer notability here.  Ammodramus (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.