Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quartzy (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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Quartzy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and routine funding news. Created by Special:Contributions/Encomiast3 with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

The first AfD discussion closed as "no consensus" in 2013. NCORP has been tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The have some coverage including two articles from the Wall Street Journal which I believe is significant. I do think the article could use expansion Freetheangels (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Both WSJ references are blogs which fail WP:RS and fail the criteria for establishing references also.  HighKing++ 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete No indications of notability. Difficult to call a company founded in 2011 a "startup" at this stage too. Fail GNG, WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Looks like they were written up in Nature which is pretty prestigious. On digging, their founders were PhDs at pretty notable labs. Given their niche they seem notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8001:55A6:612F:6080:7385:6B0F (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Response The Nature reference is concerned with the product, not the company (which is what this article is about). Notwithstanding that, within the article itself, all of the information and data are quotations from "Marie Ebersole, who manages the chemistry preparation room at Wellesley College in Massachusetts" - the same Marie Ebersole whose image is used to promote the procut on Quartzy's website. Definitely not "intellectually independent" and fails the criteria for establishing notability. Finally, you say the founders' credentials should be taken in consideration but no, notability is not inherited.  HighKing++ 21:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:43, 24 May 2018 (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.