Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QT Inc.


 * 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 keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

QT Inc.
This page is identical to the Q-Ray, and someone pulled information off that page to make this one. The court case that ruled the QRay was fake and the company was liable should be on one page. There is no different between those pages. This article was created a few hours ago. Arbusto 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - this appears to be a split from the Ionized bracelet article to which Q-Ray redirects. QT Inc. as a company has been notable (infamous?), and received verifiable press coverage and the FTC investigation which is documented as referenced.   The original editor had the references tagged, but omitted the references section.  I'ved added it in.  Note that the ionized bracelet article is about the type of product and includes one other competing product, so it is appropriate to have a separate article about QT. -- Whpq 17:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Whpq. NawlinWiki 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain as the article's creator. I'm also mostly responsible for the current ionized bracelet page.  QT's page was forked because the ionized bracelet page is about a type of product, not about a particular company's disreputable advertisement campaigns.  I was prompted to make the page by Arbustoo's significant contribution.  I hate to revert people's work, so I transferred it to an appropriate page instead. Note, Arbustoo is the one who nominated this AfD!  He is virtually this page's creator. –Gunslinger47 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just not too sure if this is a notable company outside of its one product... And I don't mind having what I wrote deleted if it isn't notable. Arbusto 00:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - QT is a notable company. That's different from a reputable company.  They meet WP:CORP criteria 1 for having multiple independent news articles about them. -- Whpq 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ionized bracelet, does not meet WP:CORP.--Peta 06:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on why it doesn't meet the first part of WP:CORP? With a quick search, I find find multiple Internet news sites reporting upon the initial injunction, and the recent case ruling.  Here's is a published book that mentions the injunction: . Additionally, you have the Mayo Clinic report which spawned the whole thing. –Gunslinger47 20:09, 14 September 2006 (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.