Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meat ganoderma

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Meat ganoderma

Meat ganoderma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Well, let's start with the topic sentence:"Meat ganoderma is a unknown lifeform. It is found in somewhere from China." Two sources are cited - one in Chinese, which I can't read. The English site is a blog post that seems to refer to the Lingzhi mushroom, Ganoderma lucidum. The author has twice reverted my redirect to Lingzhi mushroom. I don't think we have sufficient reliable sources to support the extremely vague assertions in the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can go to Chinese Wikipedia using English asking someone about the article. I don't think the deletion is constructive.--Player23 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I think your burden, as the proponent of an article in the English Wikipedia, is to provide us with a verifiable source as to what this "lifeform" is, rather than asking us to go to another Wikipedia and investigate. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a verifiable source.--Player23 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The first Chinese-origin source listed as a ref is full of wild claims reminiscent of 19th century medicine show snake oil spiels, and is someone's personal writing, with no indication it was published or that it is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. The second Chinese text reference furnished can be viewed in Google machine translation at [1]. It sounds a bit whacky, at least in the translation. We need someone fluent in Chinese to determine how reliable the source may be. Edison (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have found a English source.Here is the link--Player23 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Wild claims from a blog or the popular press are not adequate for an article about a species of living thing. Is there something from a peer reviewed scientific journal? Edison (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • There is very hard to find a English source about this article. However there is large amount of sources in Chinese.--Player23 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - If it does exist - or is suspected to at least - then it is probably a species of Ganoderma. A quick Google search seems to indicate that a few health-related sites use the term, but I can't find coverage in reliable sources suggesting that this term commonly refers to a species of this genus. I'll wait to see if additional sources turn up. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a good introduction about this but it is in Chinese.link--Player23 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• There is a news link which states that a professor of University of Washington named 邱声祥 have studied in this tropic.--Player23 (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • • Is someone capable of finding a listing of all journals published by Sheng-Xiang (Samuel) QIU, Ph.D., University of Washington? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think (using Chrome's attempt at translation) that this is an extraordinary example of the fungus to which NawlinWiki redirected this article. It might warrant a mention in that article, but I don't think it warrants its own article. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • From this source it is claim that the "fungus" is

myxomycete complex, or a kind of slime bacteria, and maybe a kind of higher fungi which arises naturally from sticky germs compound between dead organisms.

• • • It is not a certained species.--Player23 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I think you misunderstood the source. Myxomycete formations are made from fungi. The and in the sentence is not used as a separator between entries, but a linkage between "slime bacteria" and "higher fungi"; this implies that the growth is not made from one organism/species, but a combination of bacteria and fungi (possibly symbiosis?) in a single slime mold formation. In other words, the source says that it can either be a myxomycete formation, or a slime growth made from bacteria and fungi. There are only two possibilities, and both refer to slime growths. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication of notability, or even existence as a distinct entity from Lingzhi mushroom; no reliable sources. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There are many plants are not notable, why don't delete them all?--Player23 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment species are inherently notable, but this would seem to be Ganoderma lucidum rather than a different species. Smartse (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • As for notability, it is certainly notable; news of these "strange monster growths" have become very common in Chinese media. Our main problem is WP:RS (and hence, WP:V) for scientific sources, but we can work on that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete until some reliable sources indicate that this topic exists and is notable. Springnuts (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It does has reliable sources, however they are in Chinese.--Player23 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lingzhi mushroom based on the fact that nearly every hit in google for "meat ganoderma" says "meat ganoderma lucidum" in the text. Not the best reasoning I know, but it seems very likely that this is the same fungus and should be dealt with in that article, unless some scholarly sources suggest otherwise. Smartse (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In some Chinese sites its spices is called 粘菌复合体. I don't know its English name. If someone know Chinese it would be better.--Player23 (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you considered that it doesn't have an English name? Does the Zhonghua Zihai have an English name? Does Chunyun have an English name? Also, 粘菌复合体 = "compound formation of glutinous microbes", i.e. a way of saying slime mold. It is a category, not the name of the organism. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: This article has potential to be keepable, however there are a number of things that must be fixed beforehand. First of all, you cannot state that something is an "unknown lifeform" if there are samples available in this modern age; one could look at a sample through a light microscope to determine whether something was bacteria, fungi, a protozoan slime mold or some other eukaryote. I will do some copyediting, but it all comes down to finding more sources than the two currently given; you will need much more than that. Also, since I have been requested to translate a source, I will do that, give me about 10 minutes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Edit 1: I can confirm that this is not Lingzhi mushroom. The Chinese name is literally "meat Lingzhi", implying that it might be a type of, or is similar to Lingzhi or a product of Lingzhi, either by appearance or taxonomically. The two are not equivalent. The Lingzhi mushroom is an actual mushroom; the Taisui is a slime formation of either bacterial, fungal, or both, origin. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• The most likely hypothesis is that this is one of many named variants of Ganoderma lucidum. If the Chinese name is literally "meat Lingzhi", that would confirm that. On that basis, any reliably sourced material (of which we have none so far) could go into Lingzhi mushroom. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not necessarily: Black pudding is not a pudding, female ginseng is not a ginseng, Phoenix talons don't come from Phoenixes, Guinea pigs are not pigs and come from the Andes not Guinea, and pencil leads are not made from lead. A misnomer naming can arise from a number of reasons; one can state that there can be association between Taisui and Lingzhi mushroom, but it cannot be firmly stated that one is the other simply based on the naming. One is a mushroom, the other is a giant slime formation. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Several websites also use the terms "meat Ganoderma lucidum" or "Tai Sui meat Ganoderma lucidum", which also offers weak confirmation that this is a form of Lingzhi mushroom. But the right thing to do at this point is to delete the current unsourced article, and take appropriate additional action if and when sourced information is available. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Most I've seen that use those terms are from forums, which most likely used a machine translation that obtained "Ganoderma lucidum" from "灵芝". If non-reliable sources aren't used for information in Wikipedia, they shouldn't be used to come to a swift judgement either. The subject in question is clearly not a mushroom. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Recommendation (but not a !vote yet): The article should either be renamed to Roulingzhi or Taisui (slime formation). There is by no means any evidence that the English term "Meat ganoderma" is used at all by the scientific community. Roulingzhi would be a better article title, as it is a direct Latin transcription of "肉靈芝". To me, it seems that it is a direct transation using Google Translate: "肉" refers to meat/flesh, and "灵芝" refers to the Lingzhi mushroom, also known as the ganoderma. I will be WP:BOLD to make the move. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Alright, I'll officially cast my !vote as a Keep, under the strict condition that inline citations are implemented, and more sources can be found ASAP. I've done my bid copyediting spelling and grammar, and translating from the Chinese Wikipedia. There is always room for improvement along the way; if it turns out as a "delete", feel free to userfy it into my userspace, and I might look into it after I finish my Pharmacology essay (I should be studying now, thanks Wikipedia). Also, is anyone able to obtain the original official publication from Northwest University (China)? I am aware that it is extremely difficult to obtain published, peer-reviewed journals in China (everything has to make $$$ in China, and information isn't as readily available free to the public), but someone might be able to help out. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I have found Chinese University journals on the Roulingzhi; WP:N and WP:V can be confirmed, as it is now confirmed that academic sources do exist. Although these sources are present, I however am unable to obtain access to the full text (they require a payment of 3 yuan per view). Refer to the following:

• • [2][3][4][5] Title: "生物和氏璧"——神奇的"肉灵芝" ("Biological He Shi Bi" - mysterious "meat lingzhi"); Author: 金得来 Jin Delai; Institution: 南京生华生物研究所涟水特种养殖场,223400 (Nanjing, China Institute of Biology, Health Lianshui); Journal: 农村新技术 (Rural Technology); Year, volume: 2007 (6); QCode: ncxjs200706022; DOI: CNKI:ISSN:1002-3542.0.2007-06-022; Abstract: "肉灵芝"是1996年在湖北神农架深山老林发现的一种粘菌复合体,属菌科生物.据<神农本草经>记载:"肉灵芝,无毒、补中、益精气、增智慧,治胸中结,久服轻身不老". ("Meat Lingzhi" is a type of glutinous germ compound (Note: term for slime mold) body discovered in a deep forest in Shennongjia, Hubei Province in 1996, that belongs to the bacterial biological family. According to Shennong Ben Cao Jing: "Meat Lingzhi, non-toxic, self-repairing, releases spores, (used to) enhance knowledge, regulate chest ??? (Note: Classical Chinese is very difficult for me to understand), prevent aging.")
  • [6][7][8][9] Title: 中药"肉灵芝" (Chinese medicine "meat lingzhi"); Author: 巨锋 Ju Feng; Journal: 知识就是力量 (Knowledge is power); Year, volume: 2008 (11); QCode: zsjsll200811010; DOI: CNKI:SUN:ZSLL.0.2008-11-010; Abstract: 2004年7月27日,陕西省韩城市农民在黄河龙门和大禹庙之间的河滩地上发现了一个特大"肉蘑菇",其高61.5厘米、宽42厘米、重量36千克. (July 27, 2004, in Hancheng, Shaanxi Province, a farmer discovered a very large "meat mushroom" on the floor of the river bank between Longmen at Yellow River and the Da Yu temple, with a height of 61.5 cm, width of 42 cm, and weight 36 kg.)
  • [10] Title: 美容护肤新概念——世纪珍品“肉灵芝” (New concept in beauty and skincare: Century treasure "Meat Lingzhi"); Institution: 莱柏尔公司 (Lai Boer company); Journal: 美与时代 (Beauty & Times); Year, volume: 2002年 01期; DOI: CNKI:SUN:MYSS.0.2002-01-013; Abstract: <正> 北京莱柏尔化妆品有限公司利用被国内外各媒体曾经广泛报道过的神来之物"肉灵芝"研制打造出一系列护肤珍品,为爱美女性提供了全新概念的化妆品。此系列产品的核心原料源自9年前在陕西周至县发现的——"不明生物体"的浸泡液和分泌液,该生物体经过国内有关专家长期研究,最后将其命名为"特大型粘菌复合体"。另据研究报告证实,该生物体是以细菌、酵母菌、霉菌孢子等微小生物为食,以纤维素、几丁质、甲壳质等 (Lai Boer Cosmetics Co., Ltd., Beijing to utilise a "Meat Lingzhi", once widely reported in domestic and international media as a lifeform of supernatural origin, to develop a series of skincare treasure, for the beauty-conscious women to provide a brand of cosmetics. The core material of this series of products was found nine years ago in Zhouzhi County - an "unknown organism" with immerse fluid and secretions, after long-term studies of domestic experts, the ultimate name granted will be "very large-scale glutinous microbe complex". According to another study, it is confirmed that the organisms are bacteria, yeast, mold spores and other tiny creatures for food, cellulose, chitin, chitin, etc.)
  • [11] Title: 神来之物“肉灵芝” (Bizarre lifeform "Meat Lingzhi"); Author: 李永增 Li Yongzeng; Journal: 瞭望 (Outlook Weekly); Year, volume: 2001年 19期; DOI: CNKI:SUN:LWZZ.0.2001-19-027; Abstract: <正> 今年4月底,一块重达80多公斤的"神秘肉团"由西安运抵北京,开始了在北京大观园公园为期三个月的公开展览,由此又揭开了一段尘封达8年之久的旧话。 1992年8月22日,陕西周至县农民杜战盟到渭河边打捞山洪卷下的浮柴时,意外地捞上来一块黑乎乎的"肉团",据杜家人介绍,这块 (At the end of April this year, a "mystery ball of flesh" weighing over 80 kilograms arrived in Beijing from Xi'an, and initiated a three-month public exhibition in Beijing Grand View Garden Park, this has reopened a section of long-laid-idle old words, of a period of 8 years. August 22, 1992, a farmer from Zhoushi county, Shaanxi Province known as Du Zhanmeng went to the edge of Weihe River float salvage wood under torrential volume, which accidentally pulled up a piece of the dark "flesh lump", according to recollection by the Du family.)

QCode is given because some Chinese journals don't use DOI. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is a Chinese puzzle. It needs to be removed.--俠刀行 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What? puzzle? I don't understand. What do you mean? And what part of WP:DELETION does it say that Wikipedia prohibits "puzzles"? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keepUserfy to 李博杰/Benlisquare. The article has been much improved by the scholarship of 李博杰. There might be enough verification to support an article, but some of the Chinese sources inherently sound like nonreliable sources, when they say "lifeform of supernatural origin, to develop a series of skincare treasure, for the beauty-conscious women to provide a brand of cosmetics." and other snakeoil medical claims. I expect that there are low quality journals in China as there are in the English speaking world, where paid publication can be used to advertise the next magic elixer that someone hopes to make big money selling. I expect also that some newspapers are tabloids, making absurd claims. It would be helpful if 李博杰 would keep the statements from reliable journals apart from the section about more sensational claims from tabloids or scientific charlatans, and remove nonreliable blog references and such. Some of the publications say it is a mixture of widely varied substances, rather than a defined organism or a specific mixture. It seems likely that the various instances of this substance may be different assortments of various classes of living things. I do not wish to see bogus medical claims and pseudoscience enshrined in a Wikipedia article which can then be used to promote a "magic or supernatural beauty elixer" or magic cure for many illnesses, thus promoting pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific claims should be removed or identified as such. Edison (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, no psuedoscience, as that wouldn't really help the article at all. It should just stick to the main topic. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

None of those references sound reliable; none seem to be scientific journals -- even the first one seems to be a popular magazine, if this is it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One, Chinese aren't brightest at naming journals; names such as "knowledge is power" are quite common titles in China, and that should be irrelevant. Despite the really cheesy name, it is an academic journal. Second, it seems that you are quite persistent to have it merged with other article; we have pretty clearly established that it is bacteria, not a mushroom, and that it exists, regardless of everything else. Also, having room for improvement is not an excuse for deletion; WP:RS can be improved/fixed later, and we can have the article tagged at the top just like any other problematic article that requires improvement. The original nomination was because it was thought that this thing never existed. Fourth, the pseudoscience was never incorporated into the article. Mentioning what historical documents said of it is notable, and is different from modern snake-oiling as it represents historical documentation. (might I also add that there is sufficient historical documentation, and despite that most of them alledgedly referred to pseudoscientific and supernatural concepts, those concepts were the general attitudes in China back in those times.) Finally, some of the text I have only roughly translated because I didn't think that we would need to incorporate it into the article. Within the source, "lifeform of supernatural origin" refers to the slime mold's alledged properties, according to legends and the like. (if you don't consider this topic to be notable enough biologically, it would also certainly be notable in regards to Chinese traditional legends in that case, would it not?) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think this article should be deleted until we have a WP:RS establishing what it actually is. At present, we have a mess of WP:SYNTH: the organism has not even been reliably linked to the legend. And "Knowledge is Power" is NOT an academic journal, it's a "Popular science publication... to introduce young people from various circles of foreign latest technology achievements and modern scientific and technological knowledge." -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The article is a mass of unsourced and unverified "information," unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Samples: "Its existence, role and influence in biology has always been controversial." "A large number of amateur researchers from within mainland China claim that the Roulingzhi is the Tai Sui supernatural being dug up from beneath the earth in ancient legends." "Mainland Chinese media has made various interrelated reports that the Taisui is capable of purifying air and cause psychological stimulation, however there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support these claims." There is nothing here worth saving. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• CommentThe cited passages indeed sound like hypercrap and unworthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia. Stub it to reliable sourcing, and identify any craptastic claims from charlatans as such. (cf. Bigfoot, "Elvis sitings" at laundramats). Pseudoscientific crap can be encyclopedic, and should be noted as such. Edison (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete until solidly reliable sources are found. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
• If all else fails, Userfy under my name, so I can work on it later on. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Userfy to benlisquare. I think there's something of potential notability here, but the sourcing just isn't there yet. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as pseudoscience. --Nlu (talk) 15:41, 14 September 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.