Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asmasol


 * 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. I accept that this substance exists but that is not enough. No evidence of any compliance with WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Asmasol

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced, non-notable. Joke? Mjpresson (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not a joke since it does exist according to Google Scholar. Whether it's notable or not is another story.  ...  disco spinster   talk  18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Response: I thought it odd that the same user created Asmasol and Canasol, and used the same non-existent reference as the only source. Mjpresson (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Google scholar, this is all there is: "One of the first patents awarded for NPs research was in 1959 for an antibiotic named Monamycin active against the Panama disease pathogen (isolated by Ken Magnus and Cedric Hassall with IP assigned to the British NRDC). One of the most recent patent was awarded in 2002 for a potent antihelminthic called Eryngial (isolated by Wayne Forbes, Ralph Robinson and Paul Reese) – this IP is shared between the UWI and the Scientific Research Council. Several other natural products in commercial production include hypoglycin, canasol and asmasol (the latter two are registered products in Jamaica derived from Cannabis sativa".Mjpresson (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If kept, mention needs to be made that this is a Jamaican product with no apparent NDC/IDC Reg. Mjpresson (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete; as an alternative, merge to Medical cannabis, but a brief mention of existence does establish reliable sourcing for much of a statement.Novangelis (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2011 (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.