To whom it may concern, 

 We would like you to reconsider your decision to delete the article about Integromics. The deletion was motivated by the following reason:  

 "no sources provided that support article's claims of notability. The two external sources are journal articles that are not *about* Integromics, but merely report research conducted using the company's products." 

 We strongly disagree with this statement, which is certainly due to a lack of clarity in the original article. Of course we agree that many scientific articles report research conducted using the company's products. We actually did not even mention those (a list is available there: http://www.integromics.com/company/publications/articles).  
 The point here is that the two examples we mentioned belong to a very different category. Indeed, these two articles feature Integromics in the official list of the authors' affiliations, which makes Integromics one of the active contributors of the reported scientific work, as it has been acknowledged in other medias. Please consider for instance the Bio-IT World article by Kevin Davies: "Helicos and Integromics Identify New Class of Short RNA in Human Cells", which you will note is actually an external source *about* Integromics. 

 We honestly believe that without Integromics the list of bioinformatics companies only pictures a partial landscape of the actual panorama, and that Wikipedia would benefit from this addition. 

 We have been completing the Integromics page with additional references, including scientific research projects where Integromics participates and coordinates with renown international research centers and companies. Is there anything else that should be done to fulfill the quality standards of Wikipedia? 

 Thanks for your consideration