Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Materials Corporation


 * 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 SPEEDY DELETE vias G5. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Quantum Materials Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article that clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, despite having 15 references. 1 and 3 are stock ticker pages with links to press releases. 2 is self-authored SEC filing. 4 is brief mention in local paper of move out-of-town. 5 is sourced from press release. 6-14 do not mention subject of article at all. 15 is press release from PR firm that gives "awards" to its clients. Maybe some of this material could be included in the quantum dot article. Google News search turns up some more press releases. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Firstly, just to be open, I (the original article creator) do have a COI in this case. I've only recently been informed (by Logical Cowboy) of the recommended ways of declaring this - I had intended to in this case, but it slipped my mind, and the deletion request came through before I had a chance to add it. Happy to add a note on the talk page about the COI. In terms of the potential failure of WP:CORPDEPTH, I think it does have sufficient notability. Source 4 is admittedly brief, but I don't think I'd call it trivial coverage - but I may be wrong there. Source 5 may be sourced partially from a press release, but clearly goes beyond the content of any press release, suggesting independent research and fact-checking from the cite, so I would have thought that was suitable. For 15, as far as I can tell, Frost & Sullivan is a market research company, not a PR firm, so the objection doesn't seem to stand. I feel that some of the sources from 6-14 contribute to notability, demonstrating as they do the notability of the product and method, and QMC is the only company that uses that method to bulk produce tetrapod quantum dots. Being a publicly traded company, there are also a fair few articles around on the company's stocks & shares, if you dig deep enough in Google. I can track these down if they might have some relevance to the notability issue? As CORPDEPTH notes, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability" - there is no single very strong source (of the ilk of an in-depth article in a major newspaper), but there are several independent, in-depth sources, especially counting these financial discussions. Dompreston (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just adding to my original comment (hope this is the right way to format all of this, please let me know if not). Have found this, which is an IB Times piece on the Hague Corporation, which is what QMC was previously called: http://www.ibtimes.com/hague-corp-hgueob-one-watch-231527. That's obviously significant and independent coverage, I think. I've also found that QMC are covered in a good deal of market research reports on the quantum dot industry. I couldn't find any specific word on how market research reports count as sources, but since they are surely independent & reliable, it seems that they should have some impact. Here's a representative sample: http://wintergreenresearch.com/reports/QuantumDot.htm, http://www.reportlinker.com/p01121029-summary/Global-Quantum-Dots-Market.html, http://www.reportlinker.com/p0865190-summary/Quantum-Dots-QD-Market-Global-Forecast-Analysis.html, https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/research/profile_excerpt/Quantum_Materials_Corporation, http://www.futuremarketsinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221&Itemid=92. I'm not sure how much those will all meet the significance criteria, covering as they do the whole industry, but all have seen QMC as warranting mention, so should indicate some notability. I've also tracked down a few of those articles on the company's stocks: http://www.aimhighprofits.com/qtmm-quantum-materials-exits-stage-left-at-the-open-23591, http://articles.thehotpennystocks.com/quantum-materials-corp-pinkqtmms-first-appearance-on-the-promotional-scene/, http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/265221-world-market-media/78095-quantum-materials-corporation-otcbb-qtmm-9m-marketcap-26. Again, there are quite a few bits of independent and significant coverage amongst all of this. The piece in the IB Times is particularly noteworthy, as that's undeniably a reliable source. Also worth noting that the reason so many of the article's original sources are purely discussing the science is because a big part of what makes QMC notable/important is that they are the only company currently capable of manufacturing these tetrapod quantum dots in quality & quantity. I also hope to include some of this info into the quantum dots article, and a couple of other relevant ones, but there still seems to me to be sufficient notability for this company article. Dompreston (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another addition here. Have read the CORPDEPTH & Notability pages in more detail. The latter specifies that possible sources aren't limited to newspapers, magazines, etc. so it seems pretty clear that independent market research publications qualify, and the fact that 6 of these have studied QMC over the last year or so is surely a strong sign of notability. The fact that these aren't used as sources in the article itself is also no problem, as the notability rules specify that these sources need only be available - but perhaps it would be better to add them to the article? Thoughts on that very welcome. Dompreston (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient notability. Traded over the counter and shockingly little news coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:14, 23 July 2013 (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.