Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PsiQuantum


 * 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. czar 04:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

PsiQuantum

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about a company that lacks appropriate sourcing to meet the relevant guideline, WP:NCORP. The sources aren't independent in WP:ORGIND sense, as they are mostly fundraising announcemnets that provide no independent "opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." ~Styyx Talk ? 23:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America.  ~Styyx Talk ? 23:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources do appear to have some investigation that is independent, in WSJ and the Telegraph. Andrevan @ 23:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both sources only rely on quotes and announcements made by PsiQ or the firm that funded them: "PsiQuantum has secured X, PsiQuantum hopes Y", which isn't independent content. ~Styyx Talk ? 22:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Forbes has ample coverage of them in an "Editors' Pick" article at . Other significant coverage of their activities can be found at https://venturebeat.com/2021/05/05/globalfoundries-and-psiquantum-partner-on-full-scale-quantum-computerm-computer/ and I see other search results to sort through.   D r e a m Focus  11:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Solely significant coverage isn't enough to make a company notable. The latter link is indeed about what they do, but it isn't independent content (as required by NCORP), because they are telling what they do, not to mention that the source reads like a press release (which also can't be used to establish notability). Now, I can't access the Forbes source because it's paywalled, but looking at the title, I doubt any independent content will turn up, and even if it magically does, it's still only one source (though I've asked for an archive at Discord). Please don't go through the "but it meets the GNG" route, because WP:SNG (literally the section under GNG) says that companies still need to meet the strict source guidelines that are on NCORP. ~Styyx Talk ? 22:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Forbes link has no paywall for that article. I just clicked it and its still working fine.  Significant coverage in a reliable source.  And Notability clearly states you have to pass either the general notability guidelines or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both.   D r e a m Focus  09:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So basically you're saying that NCORP is useless. xD I still can't access the Forbes source: I can see it for 5 seconds before I get a membership notification blocking the whole screen which I can't click away. Your above response makes it clear there isn't any independent content anyway, and I can actually see that the source is written by contributors, which also puts its reliability in doubt too.
 * Coming back to this GNG/SNG thing, again, per WP:SNG, subject-specific guidelines in some cases "help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written". They "can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies". GNG requires reliable, independent and significant coverage. This company doesn't meet the GNG, because the available sourcing isn't considered to be independent for such subjects (WP:ORGIND). ~Styyx Talk ? 15:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The Forbes article noted above is not by Forbes staff, but by contributors which re not held to editorial oversight, and so is not really a reliable source. The Venturebaeat article noted above is a rehashed press release.  This leaves only the original 3 sources in the article.  The Telegraph is behind a pay wall, but given the other two, are weak sources for establishing notability, even if the Telegraph aticle is a very good source, on aggregate depth of ceverage is just not there. -- Whpq (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete for failing to meet the relevant standard. Maybe they'll be wiki-notable someday, maybe not. Right now, they're not. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. We have articles based on PR and announcements and such but nothing containing original/independent opinion/fact checking/analysis.  HighKing++ 11:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.