Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovo Management (2nd nomination)

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. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innovo Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Previous Afd,

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @
  JanaFisher:, who has written most of the page, to see if they have any additional information/sourcing to provide. Barring that, I go with Delete per nom. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pinging me @
  talk) 02:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have reverted that addition of the Forbes reference. It is deprecated. More so, it is contributor, meaning it is not even Forbes staff. Its not a reliable source. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any
  HighKing⁺⁺ 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: Agree with scope creep, the Forbes article is by a Forbes contributor and is not independent. Sources are interviews with founders, routine announcements, article lacks in-depth significant coverage.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2020 (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.