Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Materials Corporation
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 , 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 multiple1 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
— User:Dompreston, 18:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CORPDEPTH (Wikipedia:Notability)