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. Spinning Spark 02:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lancia(truck)[edit]

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

This new article is poorly written and duplicates the majority of information already on the main Lancia article. The presence of this new article, without any new refs, only adds confusion.

Completing incomplete nom by Warren Whyte (talk · contribs). — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written (translation from Italian?). Better to WP:TNT it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - normally I'd go and fix it, but there's no need for this to be outside of the main article, as per the nom, and it's not a useful redirect (as per the misformatted title). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also unsourced. Frigid Ninja 22:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Davey201006:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The only good reason to delete this is on quality grounds, which we don't do (We have far worse than this and can't get rid of them). The topic is notable, even if the title is broken, the current article trivial and only the list of model names really adds anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a duplication of the existing Lancia article. The vehicle list is already in the main article (although it may be incomplete), and the trucks division of Lancia isn't big enough to require its own article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has the inclination to do it well, it's an obvious candidate to fork from Lancia. However it would also be no loss in its current state. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2013 (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.