Talk:QCode

Notability
There was some talk at the WP:PODCASTING WikiProject about making this article the collaboration of the month so I decided to look into the subject and came across this draft. I was initially kind of surprised that the subject didn’t meet WP:GNG, but after doing a few Google searches I see why the coverage is considered WP:ROUTINE. However, I would think it passes WP:SIGCOV based on sources from the New York Times, TheWrap, Variety, and Apple Insider. All except the Apple Insider source is listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable. Each source dedicates well over WP:100WORDS of content so I would assume they would be considered more than a passing mention. It’s also more than WP:THREESOURCES so I would think it passes the requirement that multiple sources are generally expected. During the deletion discussion one of the users said that, “I'm seeing a fair number of articles about personnel moves and financing activities, which aren't really fodder for notability, but it is reasonable to expect that substantial sources will be forthcoming if the company is successful”. I’m not very familiar with WP:NCORP, but the examples of trivial coverage does say that “simple listings or compilations … of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders” and “standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: … of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts … and of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel” is considered trivial coverage. Do all these sources really fall under those examples of trivial mentions? I didn’t realize quite how difficult it is for a company to be considered notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

you were the one that originally recommended QCODE as a collaboration of the month so I thought you might be interested in this draft. I hope this isn't considered canvassing, especially considering there isn't an open AfD in progress and I assume you can come to your own conclusions regarding the subjects notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to be more lenient about meeting GNG, and I would personally squeak it by, but WP:NCORP tends to be scrutinized a little more than other WP:SNGs. Reports of funds raised seem to get discounted.  I didn't really work on company pages a whole lot when I first made that recommendation, and since then, I've seen some pages that I thought were good enough get deleted.  Based on the relatively recent AfD, I'm not sure how this one would fare with the WP:NPP, but if the sources haven't been improved, it's likely to go back to AfD.  A lot of more recent reporting on them seems to really be about the works that they are producing, and not about the company itself... it's a tough call. -2pou (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)