Deletion of Life Mel Honey

Comment: WP:OR|we do not publish original research, nor |run of the mill health supplements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: reads like an advert and a single study does not a honey notable make. Honey may well have some beneficial uses, but using those purported benefits to make this one honey brand seem notable fails . Appears to be snake-oil and fails GNG. '''''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: Sources exist, but even the best of them do not rise to |the level of quality necessary for medical topics, and so we have no material to build an article upon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: Per the news articles in Israel21c, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, I would say that the product satisfies .  Clearly notable.  You may not like the health claims, but the company and its product are notable. This article dispassionately discusses the "scam" aspect.  erifiability, not ruth
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:T)

Comment: Per the news articles in Israel21c, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, I would say that the product fulfils . The health claims are one thing, but the product itself is obviously notable as a product. The last time this article was nominated for deletion, the vote was overwhelmingly to keep, and for good reason. Company notability has nothing to do with the validity of health claims
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)