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 delete. Based on the discussion here, there are no reliable or secondary sources that could be used to argue notability. I'll also salt this title, alternative titles should be reported to WP:RFPP for salting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onnit[edit]

Onnit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

See my extensive PROD, Delete and Salt please as this has been deleted 3 times now. SwisterTwister talk 15:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Both your link and the statement that this has been deleted three times seem to be about another article. Please slow down and take a bit more care about what you are doing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, I witnessed the other deletion and it was for this same exact company, which is worse the fact someone clearly unknowingly accepted from AfC. SwisterTwister talk 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Swister meant to link to [1] which is where their PROD for this article appeared. However, I only see evidence that this article has been deleted once before. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: I knowingly accepted this article. I thought (and still think) that this company meets notability criteria. It has multiple reliable sources. I accepted it after I did Google search and found more sources. I think it will survive AFD. Fuortu (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, didn't it occur to you that it might be a good idea to click on your link as it was before you fixed it, and on the "logs" link above, before accusing me of lying? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I recommended this AfD twice before in 2016, and it was once deleted. I hope SwisterTwister's statement that the article be finally "salted" means it does not come back again. The company is not notable, reliable secondary sources are not used, and the content some editors wish to add is clearly promotional per WP:POVEDITOR. The article has the air of using WP for advertising to give a supplement company credibility and differentiation in a competitive market. --Zefr (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt in all plausible name variations. The closest to an RS here is the Rolling Stone Australia article (a few paragraphs interviewing the company founder in an article on nootropics in general), and that's not enough to swing a keep. GNews shows me little or nothing in the way of RSes actually about the company, and in fact mostly press releases for the mulitple other companies of this name - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I actually accepted this version of the article. Then, User:Zefr came and removed almost 60% of the content along with some reliable sources. If you haven't read talk page already, there is RFC discussion going on to restore some content. Fuortu (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  bizjournals is sponsored content, not RS. Such content should be removed; this is called "the improvement process at Wikipedia" - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What about other sources? Fuortu (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You claimed he removed RSes, I noted that the sources removed were bizjournals which is not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  He removed one bizjournal and 3 other sources. 1 2 3 Fuortu (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources on nootropics are WP:PRIMARY, thoroughly conjectural and not applicable to actual effects per WP:MEDRS. The Austin Fit article is conspicuously a promotional blog, not WP:RS. --Zefr (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First source is 'Research article' reporting on original research which makes it a secondary source. Can you please explain why second source is primary source? I don't think it is a primary source. Austin Fit magazine is a reliable source. It talks about the success of this company. Fuortu (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This strongly suggests you don't understand the term "primary source", because that's what it is - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think first source is primarily source? It is clearly a research article Fuortu (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a research article, but also a primary source as it is a report of the results of a trial by the people who conducted that trial. A secondary source would be a review article by someone else that interpreted the results of various trials. Please read WP:MEDRS, which has already been liked linked above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got it confused with review article, I guess. Fuortu (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for the medical claims that were in a previous version of the article, and no non-PR sources for the non-medical things that this company does. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is covered in reliable sources: Forbes, KXAN, Wrestling Inc., MMA Mania, Austin Culture Ramp. Though the page needs some work, the company is notable. There is nothing promotional with how the page currently reads. Meatsgains (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these sources are bad - Forbes is a contributed blog, KXAN literally says "Sponsored by Onnit Academy", Wrestling Inc. is not an RS and mentions Onnit only in passing, MMA Mania is not an RS and only says the event's using Onnit, Austin Culture Map literally says "According to a press release" - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the company has recently gotten quite a bit of coverage for its partnership with Marvel. Meatsgains (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with the Delete comments, a Marvel partnership is not WP:N, not WP:NPOV but is clearly WP:PROMO. --Zefr (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those search results constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam; strictly promotional (minor awards / listings) & no substance. The sources offered offered at this AfD are unconvincing. Salt as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2016 (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.