Deletion of Quantum Materials Corporation (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Given that the article has been edited a bit, I should state my view that it still is a clear fail of .  This nomination is not about neutrality, it's about notability, or in this case lack of notability according to the  criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPDEPTH)