Deletion of Solynta

Comment: I was unable to find independent, in depth, reliable sources for this product; hence it fails notability guidelines per . Just FYI, the scientific notability guidelines are usually aligned with general notability guidelines. The main practical difference is that secondary content embedded within in primary sources is often considered reliable in general scientific notability discussions, but MEDRS is dubious about this and prefers dedicated secondary sources such as review papers, reliable books, etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: No claim to notability given besides being a "National Icon Laureate", which I can't find any reference to, so still fails .  Even their website doesn't claim they've ''done'' anything.  Maybe they will get sales and write-ups in the future, but there's nothing now.  And, yeah, poor sources and COI
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Searching for news sources, I see two articles in PotatoPro magazine, to which I reply "there's a magazine called PotatoPro?" I think the problems here are several. Although we have a general prohibition on using YouTube sources as a reliable source, there is no such prohibtion on ''tuber'' sources. However, coverage in the tuber press seems very weak, let alone the press not read by the tuber-growing community. Perhaps the sources are there and have been all mashed up and/or fried by the search engines. Who knows? It's quite obvious though that this is a non-notable tuber company,  and any way you want to slide, mash or fry it, it fails  and  (but may be nonethless tasty
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP)