Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma anti-bonding molecule calcium carbonate


 * 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 - Voceditenore makes a good case for it being spam, and no reliable secondary sources found. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigma anti-bonding molecule calcium carbonate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable brand/formulation of calcium carbonate. (Calcium carbonate in various formulations is widely used as an inexpensive dietary calcium supplement.) Marahdeo Holdings, trading as Marah Natural, is the only company that sells it, and makes claims on their website for the superiority of its "formulation technology" to other calcium supplements. The website promotes it as a "preventative and therapeutic strategy" for Alzheimer's disease and osteoporosis as well as "helping bones to densify [sic] for higher athletes' performance". The only mentions of this brand name anywhere are on the Marah Natural website and in a couple of articles in obscure Korean journals, where it was tested on "post-menopausal" rats and allegedly improved their bone density. Needless to say, the company's website refers repeatedly to these studies as well as to "clinical trials" on swimmers carried out by "NTS Research & Inc" who developed the formulation. Note that both Marahdeo Holdings and NTS Research share the same address,. All but one of the illustrations in the article are from the Marah Natural website. It appears to be an attempt to use a scientific-looking Wikipedia article to legitimize their products, although the company is never mentioned in the article. See also this discussion at WikiProject Medicine. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable per nom. Thank you for doing the homework. Valfontis (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The term "Sigma anti-bonding" is an attempt to use a term that any chemist would understand in an entirely inappropriate way to convince people that this is real science. It is not. The use of the term is not explained. It smells of hogwash to me. As indicated above it is also promotional. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator --  SAMI  talk 16:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The article as now written is making medical claims with references that do not meet the standard used for medical articles on Wikipedia. And a search of reliable medical sources does not show any additional references to support the claims. I see nothing here that can or needs to be merged. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete We need high quality sources. As non likely exists should be deleted. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is pseudo-medicine, rubbish science, quackery, spam, nonsense, crap, rubbish, junk. Kill it with napalm, thermite, hellfire and brimstone, etc... Oh and give a soggy trout to the reviewer who accepted it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete marketing name only. Nothing useful extra here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2014 (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.