Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INVEA-TECH

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. Sandstein 18:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INVEA-TECH

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

I don't see how this company can meet basic notability guidelines. Every source I can see is either by the company, reprinted press releases or directories, and there are no assertions of importance in the article. — Coren ^(talk) 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company is the first spin off company in the Czech Republic with universities as shareholders. It is quite unique in the Czech Republic, company is popular, growing and is used as example for other R&D projects to decide spin off company establishment. - Springl (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a business working as a vendor in the field of network monitoring, network security and high-speed packet procesing. Being spun off from a university does not establish that this behind the scenes IT business has had any significant effect on history, technology, or culture. All Google News hits that I can read are press releases, or look like press releases in Czech. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all. Thank your for your feedback. I rewrote the article (history and references added and other fixes) and hope it will now meet WP requirements to be here. Could you please reconsider it? And if you see there still things which should be fixed please let me know. Springl (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still lacks independent secondary sources. a13ean (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was pinged on my talk page to take another look. I can only echo a13ean's comments about the independence of many of the references. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2011 (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.