Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrive+


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thrive+

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sure it is notable Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Blatant advertising. No evidence of meaningful notability (i.e. evidence that any credible third-party source considers it a cure for anything), and makes claims regarding medicinal effects not backed up by WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS. That author has an obvious financial WP:COI and the intention of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. His contributions show several attempts to link his product as intext spam in several articles such as Hangover and Ampelopsin. Ochiwar (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Blatant advertising by an editor with an obvious COI. Lemnaminor (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Agree with the above. COI is especially troubling. Carlos Rivas (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep None one here is making the connection that this is a PRODUCT, not a medical treatment. I would expect more from Wikipedian editors. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services. With this said, there is no soapbox promotion here. Read the article, it shows significant differences in rhetoric from advertising, so the term "blatant advertising" here shows distinct ignorance to advertising language. Concerning "no evidence that any credible third-party source considers it a cure for anything, please consider the fact that Sam Wang (neuroscientist), one of the leading neuroscientists at Princeton, said: “It looked like there was real scientific evidence for it, and so that was interesting to me because that made it different from other supplements and extracts.” Yet again, because this is a company product, it's effectiveness has nothing to do with notability or WP:MEDRS, please quit conflating the two. On conflict of interest, this usually can be a negative thing, but the article does not read advertorial at all. What I am failing to understand is how this article could be different than Hangover Heaven. They are both product/services, and that article has even less sourcing from someone like Sam Wang than this article. I also am failing to understand how when we get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangover#Potentially_beneficial_remedies, that the potentially beneficial remedies are listed, but when someone combines most of them together, people start all kinds of calls on WP:MEDRS--even again though this article is not based on efficacy, but about a notable product in multiple sources (such as being shown on TV, Princeton's newspaper, Houston's major newspaper, conservative entrepreneur papers, and currently underway, the Trenton Times (NJ.com). As a Princeton student, I can safely say that these arguments don't fit the bill and would be criticized by professors. They almost seem to be spam in themselves. Please be careful and be more considerate in what your doing. There seems to be a conservative bias and an discontinuity of judgement across articles from some editors. Please start applying an equal hand and either fix or remove some articles, or be more lenient in some articles coming in. Brookspowell629 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629
 * Regarding Notability (organizations and companies), note that it reads "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself..." None of the sources cited establish that the company behind this supposed 'cure' meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. In fact, none of the sources seem to even mention the name of any company.
 * <- comment inserted into the middle of my post by User:Brookspowell629 in violation of talk page guidelines removed AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC) ->
 * And for the benefit of the closer of this discussion, it should be noted that the 'Princeton student' behind this product is Brooks Powell, something that User:Brookspowell629 has failed to make clear above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments to Ochiwar below. Brookspowell629 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629


 * Delete. There is a little bit of arguably independent news coverage but from I what I've seen it's essentially a community paper and the Daily Princetonian; otherwise the relevant coverage appears to be press releases and publicity.  The Prince article is a decent one, but it's not enough to meet our usual standards for the notability of commercial products, health-related or otherwise. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Per WP:CSD and WP:CSD - tagged as such Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the deletion discussion as already well underway in AfD I suggest we do not speedy so to avoid the article falling under Criteria for speedy deletion in further development. Ochiwar (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable, as evidenced by lack of reliable sourcing. -- Scray (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unfortunately there just isn't enough coverage out there for this product to merit an article at this point in time. Of the sources in the article, the best one (The Daily Princetonian) would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source since Powell is a Princeton student and any affiliated paper would of course have an interest in representing one of their own in a positive light. As far as claims go, you need to understand that what User:AndyTheGrump was saying is that there hasn't seemed to be any true secondary testing at this point in time to back up the claims in the article. Saying that a Princeton scientist has backed up any of the supplement's claims would not really hold much water in many communities because while the institution is venerated, there is still the worry that a Princeton scientist would be more inclined to say positive things about something a Princeton student created. But of course the fact still remains that whether or not the product works is somewhat irrelevant as far as this AfD goes- it's more likely to gain coverage if it does work, but it's not a guarantee. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't show concern about what claims are made in an article because until it is deleted, we need to make sure that the article is as accurate as possible. That aside, the other sources don't really show much notability either as they are pretty much local papers and while that doesn't mean that they can't be useful, they are sometimes depreciated because some will consider them to be local interest type stories. I'm not entirely fond of that idea, but when all we really have are local news stations giving superficial "local interest" type treatment to a story, that doesn't really show an assertion of notability. On a side note, I am concerned that this article was apparently made by the product's creator, who did not state any COI when he began making the article. Mr. Powell, transparency is one of the most important values to have when editing Wikipedia and in general, as people can very easily get ridiculed if it appears that they were trying to promote themselves and were not transparent about everything in the process.User:Tokyogirl79 05:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * May I also point out that in his comment, Princeton neuroscientist Sam Wang was not referring to Thrive+ as claimed by Mr.Powell but to Dihydromyricetin, and he was basing his comments on a study performed in rats, which says nothing about its efficacy or safety in humans. Mr.Powell is either distorting the facts, or engaging in synthesis unworthy of a Princeton student. Ochiwar (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ochiwar, thank you for the long response. I apologize that I did not state up front that I am involved with the product, I thought the clear and easy to notice connection between "Brooks Powell" and Brookspowell629 would make that clearly known. I had read somewhere that it was not absolutely against the rules for someone behind a product or company to publish an article on what they know if they did so in an objective, and non-promotional way. I tried to do my best, and others, including you, have come along to help this read as non-promotional, so thank you. I didn't realize that there was an explicit reveal/notice clause to posting something you are involved with. Hence, why I am not embarrassed that it is clear that my username is Brookspowell629, and the article is partly about the inventor of a product named Brooks Powell, it was never meant to be hidden in the first place. Concerning Sam Wang's quote, Dihydromyricetin is the main ingredient in Thrive+. Because it is the ingredient with the neurological function, he chose to talk about it, implying that Thrive+ is at least effective for the neurological function which he attributes to it. Concerning the rat studies and human efficacy translation, please see his quote in http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/kingwood/news/princeton-student-from-kingwood-develops-supplement-aimed-at-reducing-hangovers/article_c8240c02-e687-5a76-ba54-7f3bb6e68e60.html: "The evidence for DHM comes from two sources: human experience in Eastern medicine, and peer-reviewed lab experiments showing that it can counter the effects of intoxication and withdrawal in lab animals. At the level of receptor molecules, rats and humans are highly similar.” And that: "The appeal of DHM is twofold: it acts on that receptor, so, it blocks alcohol’s ability to do its work on the brain. Second, DHM is a natural product and raises fewer concerns that it might have unanticipated effects on the brain and body.” Also, please notice that there is 7 total examples of notability on Thrive+ just between August and now, two of which being Houston TV channels. More are currently in the pipeline, such as a front pager due to come out this weekend in NJ. How many are required for notability? If it requires significantly more than this then I feel many Wikipedia articles are in Jeopardy. Concerning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services, "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." This means that the company does not need to be notable (ie: all the articles refer to it) for its product to be notable. It also says at the top: "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.'" I think there is ample evidence for Thrive+ "attracting notice." Please tell me your thoughts/reconsider your decisions. Thanks! Brookspowell629 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629
 * Please note that the long response above is not from me but from User:Tokyogirl79 as can be seen in this diff. for some reasons her signature did not show and I have now added it to avoid confusion. Ochiwar (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable promotion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Other than the technical issues raised, this article apparently violates Conflict of interest policy. The article is about a work by Brooks Powell written by Brookspowell629 and defended only by the writer. Even if B. Powell is aother person it still is a non-NPOV. Other points to consider:
 * 1) No clinical record on its efficacy, market record, hence the product could be totally useless.
 * 2) If B. Powell claims that he "began thinking about the viability of using Dihydromyricetin to treat hangover" (all refs dated 2014), he is either seriously ignorant of scientific development, or deliberately trying to self-credit an already known idea/fact. In 2012 Chinese scientists and their collaborators demonstrated that dihydromyricetin indeed has anti-hangover effects (e.g. and ); and Powell was not among them. Chhandama (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Chhandama, your comments are appreciated. The wording of the sentence now reflects your comments. I think it was originally supposed to read about DHM and viability of bringing to market. Could you please explain to me how many sources there needs to be in order for something to be notable? Brookspowell629 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629
 * It is the type of source not the number. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Brookspowell629, I find you quite amusing. Firstly, you are the B. Powell, and you violate the Wikipedia policies I have linked above. Please do read them before you make further comments, or the Welcome section of your talk page. In short, you are not to write about you. Secondly, this news item says your neuroscience teacher Samuel Wang commented you as "a very strong student who grasped important points quickly," but I think to the contrary. You lack the neurological capacity to understand. Thirdly, notability can be supported by a single good source. Your invention is not unique or notable, as a quick search will show that there are, perhaps better, brands that actually sell your kind of product (see, , , and the original Chinese make. These brand names may be mentioned in  dihydromyricetin, but we certainly don't need them as separate articles. The same goes for your article too. Chhandama (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Chhandama, thank you for your comments, but it may serve you well to read No personal attacks. Your comments seem to fit this bill. However, based on what you just said, that is like comparing 5-hour Energy to 6-Hour Power, and all the other products like it. Just because there are multiple products that can be seen as similar doesn't mean they are all not notable. Upon some preliminary searches, I can't find press for any of these products, whereas for Thrive+ there is 8+. On the COI, that is clear, as I have stated above and have apologized for. But that does not discredit something from notability. For the newest press, please see: http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/11/enjoy_tonight_thrive_tomorrow_princeton_university_junior_develops_three-pill_hangover_cure.html. I am not sure what other kind of sources could be needed for a product. (Again, noting that this article is about a product/service, not a medical treatment.)

Brookspowell629 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629
 * 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.