Talk:List of companies involved in quantum computing or communication

Notability

A user named Stesmo has removed several companies for which there were no "reliable, third-party, published sources" (from Stesmo's talk page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Stesmo). A website for a company and the fact that some of us in the community know what's going on is not enough, which is sensible. On the other end, this prohibits people from learning about what's really out there and potential job opportunities. Before I spend time putting more companies on the list, I wanted to ask, e.g., is the list linked below "notable"? Maybe there is another venue for listing such companies? https://quantumcomputingreport.com/players/privatestartup/

Bringing my conversation from my talk page to here, ComradeVVA: I am sure these are companies and they are working on Quantum Comm. However, what we need here is to see proof that it meets Wikipedia's definition of notable. One of the ways to show it meets the notability requirement for a list, is to link to a Wikipedia article for the company. If there isn't a Wikipedia page for it yet, you can include enough reliable, third-party, published sources that show 1) the company is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (it just hasn't been written yet) and 2) that it belongs on this list (in this case, the article discusses the company is involved in Quantum Computing or Communication). Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't allow for 'talked with the founder' as proof, as that would be against one of the three Core Content Policies: No Original Research.

If this subject is a passion, you could consider adding Wikipedia articles for Notable companies in this field. Check out WP:YFA for a good starting location on creating articles. You may also discover some of the companies already have Wikipedia articles and they can be added immediately to the list.

Additionally, Wikipedia's purpose does not include promoting companies for potential job opportunities, exposure, etc. I can't speak to an appropriate venue / site for this sort of thing, sorry, just that this is not one. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with ComradeVVA. Maybe it is against rules, but I wish we didn't need to enforce notability so strictly on these infinite list pages. Wikipedia would just be better if we didn't. People are just going to have to rely on other (possibly non-free) websites for it in the meantime. Cirosantilli2 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links

It was a great idea to start this wiki page (and it was about time for such a page). I have now only two small concerns/questions:

i) In this first version, when listing a company we link its homepage. Shouldn't we instead add the links to the wikipedia pages for these companies (at least for the ones that have a wiki page)?

ii) Shouldn't we add links to sources (e.g. articles) that claim that these company are involved in Quantum Computing or Communication? (We could also add the explicit pages in the company's webpage that is about quantum technology.)

Zimboras (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I've tried to add links to the office of the company that is directly involved, but if people think links to other things would survive longer, then feel free. I agree that it is best to link the Wiki pages for the companies and then cite links which show a quantum connection.

ComradeVVA —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Done! Good job on starting the article. As more companies are added, we will have to keep the wiki links and links to external articles updated. Quantumavik (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Quantumavik. It is really "well linked" now. Zimboras (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ComradeVVA I move we change "involved in" to "interested in" in the title. —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ComradeVVA Need to sync with this: https://quantumcomputingreport.com/players/privatestartup/ —Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I was just coming to add this info when I see you beat me to it. I like the guidelines that I proposed for a new article I created about Meal kits. See how the names are a mix of blue and black. Here's what I think makes sense for long lists with companies of uncertain provenance. If you can link to their Wikipedia article, that should be the link. If there's no article, the name should be sourced with an article about the company, substantiating that they are indeed a player with at least one piece of media recognition. If there's no coverage at all, then delete them as non-notable. That gets rid of all the external links per WP:EL, and I can remove the hatnote I just added. Thoughts? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new company

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.

Hi, I was wondering if Archer Materials Limited could be added to this page? You can find a summary here: https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xasx/axe/quote Website here: https://archerx.com.au/ Nature paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12232 Recent news here: https://qubitreport.com/quantum-computing-technology-and-hardware/2022/02/13/ozzies-bring-the-horizon-closer-for-quantum-powered-mobile-technology/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimpleUser4 (talk • contribs)

Hi SimpleUser, I feel the sources you provided aren't the best--QuBit Report is partisan for obvious reasons after a Google of the name, Morningstar is a tabloid, and I can't really figure out what that scientific paper is there for. Find sources that are more reliable to show your company is more notable and this will get added. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]