Talk:Ketone-IQ

Contested deletion
This article should not be deleted because...

Addressing CSD-A7 concerns

Nootrobox is credited as "Silicon Valley's favorite brain enhancing drug" by Fusion magazine (an ABC - Univision joint venture publication) and Inc_Magazine.

Nootrobox is a thought leader in the nootropics and biohacking space. Their founders wrote an op-ed on Techcrunch talking about the future and ethics of nootropics that was well received in the larger tech community.

Nootrobox has won design recognition for being a top 15 brand to watch in 2015 from UK design firm Identica.

The above cited sources come from well-respected journalists from well-regarded publications. This demonstrate the notability of Nootrobox as a business in the nootropics space not only from a thought leadership standpoint but also from a design and aesthetic perspective. The founders also have some notability for selling a previous company to Groupon which is a notable e-commerce business.

In addition, from a business perspective, Nootrobox is associated with a notable venture capital firm Foundation Capital which has backed companies like Netflix and Lending Club which are notable companies.

Lastly, from a comparables perspective, Nootrobox as a subject is just as if not more cited than similar articles on similar subjects including Bulletproof_Coffee or other startup companies with Wikipedia pages.

Addressing CSD-G11 concerns

The language used is not promotional and uses a neutral tone similar to the tone found in articles on similar e-commerce companies like Warby Parker or products like Bulletproof_Coffee. Each statement is backed and linked to a well-regarded, third-party source.

Burntbacon (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Argument for deletion
Reasons to delete this article: --IO Device (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is being used by its author (who happens to be the company's founder) to promote the relatively nascent company and also to promote himself!
 * The references used in the article are bloggy in nature, and are non-notable themselves. I could probably encourage some bloggers to write about me, for that matter, and perhaps so could you. Does that in itself make us deserve our own Wikipedia articles?
 * Attempts, i.e. edits with explanatory summaries were made by me to decrease the promotional nature of the article, not that I believe it could ever be neutral. These edits were all reverted by the creator to restore the promotion. He obviously doesn't want anyone else to touch his article! As such, I believe the article to not be salvageable.

Counter argument // Reasons to Keep
 * IO Device appears to have an agenda against 1.) Nootrobox and 2.) to me personally as a Wikipedia contributor. This user has written threatening comments on my user page, accused me as being the founder of Nootrobox (which is irrelevant to the merits of the article if I were involved in the organization or not), and has made this an ad hominem argument and not one based on the merits. The sources cited for the Nootrobox article are well-respected publications with millions of readers including Inc Magazine, TechCrunch, and Business Insider. If it's so trivial to get "bloggers" to write about a subject, then perhaps you should do it. In fact, having 3rd party professional journalists think it's interesting and important is part of the litmus test for being 'notable.'


 * I'd also like to direct 3rd party moderators / administrators to IO Device notes on my personal page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burntbacon) of "coming after me" and other threatening messages as evidence that IO Device is not be appropriate for the Wikipedia community. If you look at his edit history, he has a history of conflicting with other users and starting edit / revision wars. I encourage third party to help step in and help enforce community standard.


 * Clearly, there's notability with the article. IO Device himself worked on improving the article. However, unfortunately, IO Device just cut relevant information and turned the article into a stub. I do encourage other editors to contribute and help make this a great article. I'm just stolidly against vandalism by a threatening and rude user.

Burntbacon (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Blatantly Promotional
I attempted to surgically clean up the promotional nature of the article, but the clean up was reverted by the founder. This provides further merit for taking the article up for deletion. --IO Device (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Counter argument // Reasons to Keep
 * IO Device deleted relevant history and facts about the company and made the article into a stub. In a way, his 'edits' were akin to vandalism. The tone of the material is not promotional in nature and matches the tone of similar pages like Warby Parker.


 * IO Device again accuses me of being involved with the company, which is wholly irrelevant to the merits at hand. It seems that IO Device has an agenda himself.

Burntbacon (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Burntbacon, I don't really see where IO Device has an agenda here. He is correct in that if you are affiliated with Nootrobox then you will need to disclose this on your talk page and/or on the article itself, preferably both. Wikipedia does discourage editing with a conflict of interest because it's extremely easy to write about something in a promotional tone without meaning to. Stating that other articles use similar phrasing does not excuse promotional prose, as Wikipedia has a very big issue with companies coming on to edit/create their own pages or asking/paying someone else to do the work for them. As a result there are a lot of articles that need to be re-written in order to meet NPOV guidelines. I will say that I do think that IO Device could have phrased himself much better as adding the term "futile" does come across badly, but again- he is correct in that you need to state COIs up front. The way you've written the article is extremely similar to how a lot of COI editors, especially those who are in or have been trained in marketing products/companies, so that's likely why he suspected you of having a conflict of interest, along with the fact that both of the founders of Nootrobox attended Stanford, which you've also attended. Now take this into mind- you can still edit with a conflict of interest as long as you are up front about it and follow the editing guidelines very carefully. Yes, you will encounter resistance but editing is still possible. However I do need to say that if you aren't editing with a conflict of interest then you will still need to follow policy as well. I should also probably explain what a COI editor is: this is a person with a conflict of interest is anyone with a vested interest in the wellbeing of the company. This means that it can be anyone from one of the founders, to an employee, to a fellow student or faculty member at the colleges they attended, to friends and family members or people they've hired to write about the company. Of course not all COI are equal necessarily, since it's entirely possible that you are someone who just happened to attend the same college and wanted to write about someone who is peripherally related to yourself, even though you've never met them. In any case, I'm going to decline the speedy but this does need editing for tone. Offhand I'd recommend avoiding phrases like "Nootrobox is known for its design and conceptual innovation." That's considered to be a fairly WP:BUZZWORD-y phrase and unless you're quoting someone directly, I'd avoid phrases like that. This isn't so bad that it's unsavable, but it does need editing. I'll try to re-write some of this to better fit NPOV. I'd also recommend that if further deletion is desired, it should be through WP:AfD since there is a credible assertion of notability here via the coverage and in situations like this deletion should be decided via a consensus. I do need to warn you though, you need to be careful about some of the sources. This source is WP:PRIMARY since it was written by one of the two founders and as such, cannot show notability for the company. Sources like that can be used to back up trivial details, but ideally you should have secondary sources like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Something to also be careful about are sources like this one. Since Woo has written for TechCrunch, that can make any source by them a little wonky as far as notability giving purposes goes. This one predated the aforementioned article, but just be careful of that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Tokyogirl79. I'll look for your edits and see where / how to improve this article. Burntbacon (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleanup and removed the stuff that really needed to be removed or re-written. I've also fixed some of the sources since they didn't include the authors, although that's pretty easy to skip over- I've done it myself on more than a few occasions. I did leave in the Identica bit, but I don't really see where the firm is notable enough for this to really count towards notability. I do have to caution you that a lot of the sources were released around the same point in time, so this may not show a true depth of coverage if IO decides to take this to AfD. I do see where you had coverage for another one of Woo's projects, so you may want to think about creating a page for Woo and merging this information into that article as a subsection. It's often far more easy to have an article for one person and add information about their projects/companies than it would be to have an article for one of the companies. I also have to mention this: if you are a COI editor (I notice that you have neither confirmed or denied that you are) then you really do need to say this up front since not stating or denying a COI can be seen as you trying to hide the fact. (Which can lead to a block in some circumstances.) If you want a good example of how to state a COI on a userpage (if you are) then you may want to look at my alternate user account here, which I use to make edits for a library where I work as a volunteer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems likely that Burntbacon is in fact Geoffrey Woo (co-founder and author of the techcrunch article) (for more details see User_talk:Burntbacon). Regarding User:IO Device his methods might have been overly harsh but not unwarranted. I'd also like to clarify for Burntbacon that involvement in the company (especially as a founder) is relevant to the article (especially in the case of the subject being the primary contributor) as it clearly constitutes a significant COI. -- Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, Erik.Bjareholt. How would I best declare a COI without over-intrusion on my privacy to my other activities on wikipedia? (Apologies for the late responses, I have been traveling this past week.) Burntbacon (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "without over-intrusion on my privacy to my other activities on wikipedia". Could you please clarify? Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily want to tie 'burntbacon' to my name although it seems like it's now a moot point. Burntbacon (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Efforts ongoing to remove summary of the best avaliable evidence from the lead
"One of the products called Sprint however worked less well than caffeine-alone used as the control in a trial. "

Effort is involving and IP and now an account which are clearly the same and appear to be from the company in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this was removed "The company then asked researchers to change the name of the product to distance it from the analysis."? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)