Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InovaTech


 * 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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

InovaTech
Advertising and self-promotion. Despite being a tech company there are no external links to their website, so unverifiable as well. Z iggurat 23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; WP:NOT advertising; article is written in PR-speak, and is primarily aimed at selling products and services. &mdash; RJH 17:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE &mdash;I found the article informative and containing useful information. It seems no more self promotional than others on Wikipedia and probably a good deal more factual
 * Comment in order to be considered factual, an article on Wikipedia needs to reference and demonstrate its facts in reliable third-party sources. These can be in the form of academic journals, (reputable) newspaper or magazine articles, books, and so forth - we call it verifiability. If we can't verify it, there's no proof that this actually exists, or that if it exists it is worth putting in an encyclopedia. There's often a strong reaction in Wikipedia to perceived advertising pages - that is, pages created solely to promote a company that is otherwise unexceptional - and I haven't seen anything to prove that this is otherwise. If you feel that other articles are the same (unverifiable advertising, that is), that is an argument to delete those articles also, not keep this one. Please indicate which articles you feel meet the same criteria! Z iggurat  23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Assuming the above doesn't happen, delete. -- SCZenz 03:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It is an advertisement
 * Retain I notice this company seems to mentioned quite frequently in IEEE publications so I assume that much of capabilities are highly regarded, a number seem unique and newsworthy
 * Worth keeping saw lots of references to InovaTech in technical magazines and patent publications relating to innovative architectures for PLC, filters, power supplies and energy measurement (especially fraud detection using Wavelet theory)
 * Comment great, I'm glad to hear it. If you add properly cited references to the publications (IEEE / technical sound good - anyone can be granted a patent) to the article I'm sure that will carry a lot of weight in the deletion discussion. If they're newsworthy, where have news items about them been published? We cannot merely take anyone's word that they've seen citations - we need to have the reference itself so that other people can check up on it. It's also worth noting that putting up three votes from one person is also frowned upon in Wikipedia, as it could be perceived as trying to subvert the voting/discussion process (something we call 'sockpuppeting'). Z iggurat  00:15, 27 October 2005 (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.