Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganoderma tsugae var jannieae

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ganoderma tsugae var jannieae

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no real proof of the existence of this product, because that's what it is, as far as I can tell: all the evidence comes from patent applications. PROD removed without explanation; if this is anything, it's a marketing effort. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definite marketing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might be worth redirecting to Ganoderma tsugae which already discusses medicinal properties of fungi in this group (maybe separate species, maybe not). If G. tsugae var jannieae turns out to be distinct and useful, it might merit its own page, but it'll need RS for that. As it is now, apparently unsourceable, it should be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a case of WP:TNT, pure advertising, may or may not merit a mention at Ganoderma tsugae. However, Jannie Chan/Jannie Tay merits an article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.