Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L-Arginine Malate


 * 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   Procedural KEEP All Each article should be judged on its own merit as per DGG and Mkativerata. Renominate individually if justified Mike Cline (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

L-Arginine Malate

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

All of these articles about dietary supplements look encyclopedic on the surface, but their motivation for being here is to promote the commercial website purebulk.com. As you can see from this posting on odesk dot com, the webpage has been looking for paid editors to help promote themselves. The odesk buyer who listed the ad, Jared Smith, is listed as purebulk's operater on its website.
 * Also nominated for deletion are the following articles
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

These pages, each uploaded by the same user (User:Healthycare), all have very similar duplicate articles on purebulk.com. As an example, the duplicate page to L-Arginine Malate is here (link now unavailable - copy of transcript here. Note the similar wording: "L-Arginine Malate is used to help build lean, strong muscles, burn fat, increase strength and stamina, and promote recovery. The compound is considered to be effective for improving recovery after surgery. The intake of L-arginine with ribonucleic acid (RNA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) before or after surgery seems to help reduce the recovery time, decrease the number of infections, and speed up wound healing after surgery." is written in our article and "L-Arginine Malate can help build lean, powerful muscle, burn fat, increase strength and power, maximize endurance, and promote recovery. L-Arginine Malate is also effective for improving recovery after surgery. Taking L-arginine with ribonucleic acid (RNA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) before surgery or afterwards seems to help reduce the recovery time, decrease the number of infections, and speed up wound healing after surgery." is written in the commercial purebulk article. The purebulk articles are all commercial in nature and all exist to sell the product that they discuss, with several different sizes and prices listed on each page.

Relevant policies for deletion would be WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and also potentially WP:COPYVIO if more close paraphrases are discovered throughout the articles. Again, although there is a lot of puffery to these articles, they should be deleted because their real purpose is to use Wikipedia for commercial interests.  Them From  Space  08:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I moved Creatine ethyl ester malate to the main space. It was one of the few articles in Category:Requests to move a userspace draft that did not look promotional to me. Finally, a scientific article. Boy, was I wrong! The only thing I would add is that the article contains unsourced info about toxicity. Sole Soul (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added Creatine Ethyl Ester Hydrochloride, which was created by User:Healthycare and then merged into Creatine ethyl ester, to the AFD.


 * Delete per nominator's recommendations and reasoning, all except Creatine ethyl ester because its creation pre-dates the promotional contents and has been reverted to an older version. While most of these topics are notable enough to be included, under these circumstances I would prefer them to be deleted and recreated from scratch.  If they are not deleted, they should at the very least be reduced to stubs.  Others could be redirected to articles on the parent chemical compound (Synephrine hydrochloride to Synephrine, for example). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Creatine ethyl ester is certainly notable enough to have it's own article (numerous editorial pieces in fitenss and bodybuilding magazines throughout the 2000's). No comment on the other items in the list. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Creatine ethyl ester was nominated by mistake and is now removed. Sole Soul (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll extend my opinion of Keep to the other ingredients. There are varying degrees of notability, and I disagree with the nomination that they're spam. A re-write is always favorable over a mass-delete based on suspected commercial involvement. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm rather leery of mass deleting this many articles.  I will admit that I did not visit each page, but the ones I did look at Zinc aspartate, Arginine Pyroglutamate, Creatine ethyl ester, and Betaine aldehyde all seemed reasonably neutral in tone.  All of these compounds may be worthy encyclopedia subjects, even if they are inert or dangerous.  None contains a link to purebulk.com.  I probably take a harder line on spam than many, but these articles are not about obscure or non-consumer businesses or products.  They're about chemical compounds: subjects that, for want of a better word, are "encyclopedic".  The motives for creating them seem to be only faintly reflected in the actual content.  If any are in fact copyright violations, deletion without prejudice would be indicated, although close paraphrase is probably acceptable in material of this sort.  As general subjects they seem quite appropriate, and the bias or conflict of interest is not so obvious on the surface.  Flag them for expert attention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I added whatever related links I could find to purebulk next to the article names up above.  Them From  Space  19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. comment from the articles originator Wow, what a debate! I think I have to put something to justify my work. Not sure if I'm allowed to vote, but you should take into consideration these facts:


 * 1)     These are all worthy encyclopedia subjects having good reliable and verifiable sources.
 * 2)     These are not about obscure or non-consumer businesses or products.
 * 3)     They are all reasonably neutral in tone...if you think something needs to be changed, then change it.
 * 4)     They are not copywrited content, all having its own and proven originality. J.D. (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Much as I dislike dietary supplement quackery, I think that these articles are adequately referenced at least as to chemical characteistics. However, any claims to medical efficacy, unless referenced to reliable sources, should be removed by normal editorial process.Thincat (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of these compounds are simply trivial salts or esters; they should be redirected to the parent compound. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Renominate individually the articles of of different degrees of notability, merit, and freedom from advertising. There's no one solution that applies to them all, and I did check each article. It would help to remove all unsupported claims of nutritional or medical use first, article by article. This is too much to rewrite during an afd.    DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC).
 * A procedural keep all without prejudice to immediate individual renominations. We can't confidently say keep all or delete all for the lot. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - looking at the first of Smerdis of Tlön's examples - Zinc aspartate - the article seems okish, and there are plenty of google news/books/scholar results, so I think it would be better to close this and renominate them individually. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - "But the links are useful" is an unacceptable argument used by spammers when the links they added are deleted, it should not be acceptable here. Spamming distorts the way we determine which topics worth coverage and which do not. Sole Soul (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2010 (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.