597:
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
Knowledge 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.
635:
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
639:: "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 Knowledge articles are in Jeopardy. Concerning
349:--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.
643:, "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!
329:. 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
333:, 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
372:, 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 Knowledge notability guidelines. In fact, none of the sources seem to even
868:
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
596:
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
634:
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
822:
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
740:
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
614:, 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
772:, 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?
813:
Brookspowell629, I find you quite amusing. Firstly, you are the B. Powell, and you violate the
Knowledge 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
337:, 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
583:. 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
819:
636:
587:
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
400:
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.
163:
224:
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
565:
550:
116:
870:
637:
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/kingwood/news/princeton-student-from-kingwood-develops-supplement-aimed-at-reducing-hangovers/article_c8240c02-e687-5a76-ba54-7f3bb6e68e60.html
369:
341:. 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
157:
873:. 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.)
451:
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. --
592:
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
325:
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:
508:
871:
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/11/enjoy_tonight_thrive_tomorrow_princeton_university_junior_develops_three-pill_hangover_cure.html
345:, that the potentially beneficial remedies are listed, but when someone combines most of them together, people start all kinds of calls on
123:
869:
I have stated above and have apologized for. But that does not discredit something from notability. For the newest press, please see:
443:. 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
800:
507:
Since the deletion discussion as already well underway in AfD I suggest we do not speedy so to avoid the article falling under
207:
17:
711:
611:
823:
notable, as a quick search will show that there are, perhaps better, brands that actually sell your kind of product (see
178:
89:
84:
381:<- comment inserted into the middle of my post by User:Brookspowell629 in violation of talk page guidelines removed
804:
211:
145:
93:
914:
891:
777:
648:
422:
354:
330:
76:
40:
640:
326:
139:
887:
773:
720:
644:
418:
406:
386:
350:
234:
910:
569:
554:
36:
135:
296:
56:
895:
864:. Your comments seem to fit this bill. However, based on what you just said, that is like comparing
849:
808:
781:
760:
702:
675:
652:
627:
601:
572:
557:
541:
520:
498:
460:
426:
410:
390:
358:
317:
300:
283:
238:
215:
58:
861:
845:
796:
756:
615:
456:
203:
171:
80:
641:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services
313:
263:
185:
327:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services
749:
737:
No clinical record on its efficacy, market record, hence the product could be totally useless.
698:
671:
623:
589:
584:
516:
402:
382:
279:
259:
230:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
909:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
840:, but we certainly don't need them as separate articles. The same goes for your article too.
72:
64:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
837:
833:
742:
659:
598:
666:. for some reasons her signature did not show and I have now added it to avoid confusion.
537:
495:
346:
338:
334:
292:
251:
226:
53:
857:
841:
788:
769:
752:
729:
452:
195:
151:
865:
473:
469:
309:
255:
247:
509:
Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions
694:
667:
619:
512:
447:; otherwise the relevant coverage appears to be press releases and publicity. The
275:
110:
830:
746:
533:
478:
710:. Other than the technical issues raised, this article apparently violates
827:
824:
370:
Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services
860:, thank you for your comments, but it may serve you well to read
658:
Please note that the long response above is not from me but from
262:. His contributions show several attempts to link his product as
903:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
343:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Hangover#Potentially_beneficial_remedies
532:
as not notable, as evidenced by lack of reliable sourcing. --
566:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
342:
291:. Blatant advertising by an editor with an obvious COI.
728:. Even if B. Powell is aother person it still is a non-
663:
551:
list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions
271:
267:
106:
102:
98:
170:
308:. Agree with the above. COI is especially troubling.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
917:). No further edits should be made to this page.
184:
8:
564:Note: This debate has been included in the
549:Note: This debate has been included in the
836:. These brand names may be mentioned in
563:
548:
258:and the intention of using Knowledge as a
787:It is the type of source not the number.
417:Please see my comments to Ochiwar below.
745:indeed has anti-hangover effects (e.g.
714:policy. The article is about a work by
254:. That author has an obvious financial
7:
751:); and Powell was not among them.
24:
618:unworthy of a Princeton student.
741:collaborators demonstrated that
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
712:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
1:
896:20:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
850:03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
809:20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
782:20:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
761:10:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
703:13:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
693:. Not notable promotion. - -
676:06:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
653:21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
628:09:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
602:05:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
573:03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
558:03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
542:23:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
521:21:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
499:20:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
461:17:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
427:21:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
411:16:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
391:20:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
359:15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
318:10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
301:10:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
284:10:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
239:08:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
216:08:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
59:00:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
266:in several articles such as
732:. Other points to consider:
934:
610:May I also point out that
834:the original Chinese make
724:and defended only by the
331:Sam Wang (neuroscientist)
906:Please do not modify it.
511:in further development.
32:Please do not modify it.
194:Not sure it is notable
862:No personal attacks
662:as can be seen in
445:Daily Princetonian
48:The result was
590:User:AndyTheGrump
575:
560:
476:- tagged as such
925:
908:
898:Brookspowell629
838:dihydromyricetin
793:
784:Brookspowell629
743:dihydromyricetin
660:User:Tokyogirl79
655:Brookspowell629
599:User:Tokyogirl79
497:
376:of any company.
374:mention the name
200:
189:
188:
174:
126:
114:
96:
34:
933:
932:
928:
927:
926:
924:
923:
922:
921:
915:deletion review
904:
888:Brookspowell629
789:
774:Brookspowell629
721:Brookspowell629
645:Brookspowell629
477:
429:Brookspowell629
419:Brookspowell629
361:Brookspowell629
351:Brookspowell629
339:Hangover Heaven
196:
131:
122:
87:
71:
68:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
931:
929:
920:
919:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
820:this news item
764:
763:
738:
734:
733:
705:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
612:in his comment
605:
604:
577:
576:
561:
545:
544:
526:
525:
524:
523:
502:
501:
463:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
363:
362:
320:
303:
286:
244:Strong Delete.
241:
222:Speedy delete.
192:
191:
128:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
930:
918:
916:
912:
907:
901:
900:
899:
897:
893:
889:
872:
867:
866:5-hour Energy
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
828:
825:
821:
817:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
792:
786:
785:
783:
779:
775:
771:
768:
767:
766:
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
747:
744:
739:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
722:
717:
716:Brooks Powell
713:
709:
706:
704:
700:
696:
692:
689:
688:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
656:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
606:
603:
600:
595:
591:
586:
582:
579:
578:
574:
571:
567:
562:
559:
556:
552:
547:
546:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
527:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
500:
496:
494:
493:
490:
487:
484:
481:
475:
471:
467:
466:Speedy delete
464:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
439:
438:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
408:
404:
399:
392:
388:
384:
380:
379:
378:
377:
375:
371:
367:
366:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:Speedy delete
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:Speedy delete
287:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
240:
236:
232:
228:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
199:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
121:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
905:
902:
886:
818:. Secondly,
815:
790:
725:
719:
715:
707:
690:
593:
580:
570:NorthAmerica
555:NorthAmerica
529:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
465:
448:
444:
440:
403:AndyTheGrump
383:AndyTheGrump
373:
322:
310:Carlos Rivas
305:
288:
243:
231:AndyTheGrump
221:
197:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
119:
49:
47:
31:
28:
718:written by
323:Strong keep
264:intext spam
158:free images
585:WP:PRIMARY
474:WP:CSD#G11
368:Regarding
293:Lemnaminor
272:Ampelopsin
54:j⚛e decker
911:talk page
858:Chhandama
842:Chhandama
791:Doc James
770:Chhandama
753:Chhandama
664:this diff
616:synthesis
594:Princeton
470:WP:CSD#A7
453:Arxiloxos
198:Doc James
37:talk page
913:or in a
801:contribs
347:WP:MEDRS
335:WP:MEDRS
268:Hangover
252:WP:MEDRS
227:WP:MEDRS
208:contribs
117:View log
39:or in a
695:MrBill3
668:Ochiwar
620:Ochiwar
513:Ochiwar
276:Ochiwar
260:soapbox
164:WP refs
152:scholar
90:protect
85:history
73:Thrive+
65:Thrive+
832:, and
726:writer
708:Delete
691:Delete
581:Delete
530:Delete
449:Prince
441:Delete
393:-: -->
256:WP:COI
248:WP:GNG
246:Fails
136:Google
94:delete
50:delete
805:email
534:Scray
212:email
179:JSTOR
140:books
124:Stats
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
892:talk
846:talk
797:talk
778:talk
757:talk
748:and
730:NPOV
699:talk
672:talk
649:talk
624:talk
538:talk
517:talk
472:and
468:Per
457:talk
423:talk
407:talk
387:talk
355:talk
314:talk
297:talk
280:talk
270:and
250:and
235:talk
204:talk
172:FENS
146:news
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
856:Hi
816:you
274:.
186:TWL
115:– (
894:)
848:)
829:,
826:,
807:)
803:·
799:·
780:)
759:)
701:)
674:)
651:)
626:)
568:.
553:.
540:)
519:)
459:)
425:)
409:)
389:)
357:)
316:)
299:)
282:)
237:)
229:.
214:)
210:·
206:·
166:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
52:.
890:(
844:(
795:(
776:(
755:(
697:(
670:(
647:(
622:(
536:(
515:(
492:i
489:t
486:s
483:u
480:D
455:(
421:(
405:(
385:(
353:(
312:(
295:(
278:(
233:(
202:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
120:·
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.