Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inovenso

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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inovenso[edit]

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

Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sourcing. Currently cobbled together from partners, listings and advertising. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - nn, fails gng, and incidently appears to have paid COI - which on its own is not a reason to delete, but which compounds the gngness. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete A poorly sourced stub article, on a company of minor importance. Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very Specific sort of new technology field and has to be keeped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.232.20.82 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Inovenso is mentioned as a supplier of electrospinning devices in several books. Google Scholar returns many pages of results where Inovenso machines are mentioned although I don't have access to the articles. Gab4gab (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Depends - One of the new technology supplier listed in electrospintech forum, just have 10 another all over the world. Seems serious to me. But experts on this technology will decide better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.90.150 (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely advertising only focusing with what the company itself would want to advertise about itself, there's literally nothing else to suggest considering the history contains nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 30 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.