Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quartzy

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. L Faraone 02:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quartzy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement, orphan, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References in the article include significant coverage from a New York Times blog and a Wall Street Journal blog. The company won the Startup 2011 award from Business Insider and the Olin Cup from Washington University - St. Louis; those are not necessarily significant awards in themselves, but combined with the other coverage they help this company reach notability IMO.--MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete getting listed as 'one to watch' is not notability in itself. THE NYT coverage is a blog not the print paper and contains only four paragraphs. Most of the other things are interview-based, with the factual content coming from the company, thus not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newspaper blogs published under the editorial control of the newspaper are essentially the equivalent of the former regular columns, and equally reliable. Print eds. of a paper are not inherently more reliable than electronic. The sort of blog we do not accept is the privately published blog of someone who has no substantial claims to being an authority. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.