Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amberen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amberen

Amberen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article put up for speedy deletion as spam but have doubts about that so bringing it here. Talk page comment gives reason for deletion - "This is an advertisement masquerading as science. The science is nonsense, succinate conformation in biological environments can not be fixed. There is no such spectroscopy as mentioned in the text and in references. The article referenced is not a real publication. The article needs to be deleted quickly, before they use it as means to cheat people." Davewild 12:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


As physician with a degree in biochemistry I actually find their science both real and quite groundbreaking. The site's Clinical Info page contains a long list of published studies on succinates conducted by this group that were published in credible international peer-reviewed journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.25.218 (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC) — 71.107.25.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete. Reads like an ad. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ At first glance, this is a well written article about a chemical compound. However, when you start to investigate both the article and the links you find this is clearly spam for an over the counter remedy of a “Trademarked” product. “Clinical study” was a 4 week trail on mice! Shoessss |  Chat  13:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Deceivingly well written, but the science is bogus. Product promotion is evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapke (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, promotional. The only "coverage" I found was an apparent press release published on an obscure health website. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- also see this article: Eugene Mayevsky. --A. B. (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can say with certainty that the chemistry described in the "Active Conformers of Succinate" is complete, total nonsense. The product advertised here apparently contains succinic acid (succinate), a common chemical compound, which does have some biological relevance, which of course can be adequately described at that article. This article is just spam. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete One paper reporting a trial (even though it did include humans [1] ) is not notability. the other refs are general articles on the citric acid cycle which have nothing particular to do with this product. The web site is not reassuring. DGG (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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.