Deletion of Ball-pen probe

Comment: Tricky. On the one hand, that's a lot of valid sources, and apart from some over-illustration (and grammar), that's a very well-constructed article. On the other hand, the COI is strong in that one - the inventor and main page editor features in 24 of the 38 refs, and at least three others seem to be theses from their graduates; and honestly, starting an article with "X is a novel technique for..." raises immediate warning flags about . I think non-familiarity with the field prevents me from assessing this one correctly
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: A lot of the references fail , but I feel that the refs listed Special:PermanentLink/801887950|(as of now) at 20 and 22 are enough to show that this has been used by multiple independent research groups who published nontrivial data using it, that is as close as a scientific instrument can get to "notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INDY)