Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Materials Corporation (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Quantum Materials Corporation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( 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) 14:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Firstly, just to be open, I (the original article creator) do have a previously disclosed COI in this case. In terms of the potential failure of WP:CORPDEPTH, I think the article 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, Frost & Sullivan is a market research company, not a PR firm, so the above 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. There is also further coverage not currently included in the article itself, such as this 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. Since these are surely both 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. 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, such as: 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. 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. As CORPDEPTH notes, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple 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 the financial discussions, the IB Times piece, and the numerous market research reports. Obviously these all show notability even though they aren't included in the article itself, but perhaps some could be included as sources if people think that would improve the article. Dompreston (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just adding that I've taken another look at the article and made some edits to remove any language that might have seemed even slightly promotional - if there are any other instances that seem anything other than neutral, please say so here so that the page can be improved. I've also added the above mentioned International Business Times article, which backs up a claim in the article, and obviously demonstrates notability. I'd also like to reiterate the significance of the aforementioned market research reports - these are independently researched documents published by respected organizations that have seen QMC as notable enough to warrant inclusion in the reports, and there are more than 15 of them out there. If that doesn't show notability, I don't know what does. Dompreston (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One final quick note, I don't want to take over this AfD: I've made further edits to the page, that I hope improve the content and remove anything objectionable. Please note that these changes make the source numbers used above to refer to sources out of date, for those trying to follow the discussion - some of these sources have been renumbered, and several are no longer used at all. I've also found a further two market research reports that I don't think have been mentioned yet: http://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/advanced-materials/graphene-applications-markets-avm075a.html and http://www.frost.com/sublib/display-report.do?searchQuery=%22quantum+materials+corporation%22&ctxixpLink=FcmCtx1&ctxixpLabel=FcmCtx2&id=D776-00-0A-00-00&bdata=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mcm9zdC5jb20vc3JjaC9jYXRhbG9nLXNlYXJjaC5kbz9wYWdlU2l6ZT0xMiZxdWVyeVRleHQ9JTIycXVhbnR1bSttYXRlcmlhbHMrY29ycG9yYXRpb24lMjImeD0yMSZ5PTZAfkBTZWFyY2ggUmVzdWx0c0B%2BQDEzNzY1NzYxODUwMTE%3D. Again, these are independently written & researched publications by researchers and companies that have deemed QMC notable enough for inclusion, as required by the Wiki notability guidelines. Dompreston (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just a commercial ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete per nom.  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Insufficient notability. Traded over the counter and shockingly little news coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that the article has been edited a bit, I should state my view that it still is a clear fail of WP:CORPDEPTH. This nomination is not about neutrality, it's about notability, or in this case lack of notability according to the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:14, 16 August 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.