Deletion of Thrive+

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: Fails  and . That author has an obvious financial  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hangover&diff=629349296&oldid=629328148 Hangover and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ampelopsin&diff=633194727&oldid=633182275 Ampelopsin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MEDRS||WP:COI||WP:SOAPBOX||WP:LINKSPAM)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: 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 , 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 --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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS||WP:MEDRS)

Comment: Per #A7 and #G11 - tagged as such
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:CSD)