Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumijo


 * 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   merge to Shilajit.  Sandstein  07:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Mumijo

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Entry is for supposed miracle cure that has great scientific back-up, but also says it is unknown if the substance is "biological" or "geological". Most Google hits lead to snake oil sellers. Bricology (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - No reliable sources. The only source given does not investigate Mumijo (it goes alnog with snake-oil sellers' claims), but whether or not some Antarctic dirt has the same properties.  If there were already reliable sources for Mumijo, then this would be a good source for additional information about the Antarctic dirt, but it doesn't support the article itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you "support"ing, exactly? Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support deletion - sorry for not being clear about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, Google Scholar gives 37 hits for mumijo, of which over one half are relevant, and 52 hits for mumiyo; sometimes, "mumie" is also used (e.g. Medical drugs from humus matter: Focus on mumie, Characterization and Biological Activities of Humic Substances from Mumie, etc). So there has been at least some interest from professional researchers (even if it may have resulted in the conclusion that "it's all bullshit". forgive my pun). -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. and also 281 Google Scholar hits on мумиё (the Russian spelling), plus 3 on шиладжит (my idea of the Russian transcription for shilajit); some of those from things such as Cand. Sci. dissertations, although many from what one can only charitably call "popular science" literature. -- Vmenkov (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to shilajit, that's the proper article on the topic and the more widely used word. 1840 results on Google books for shilajit. Silver  seren C 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the merge proposal: And, indeed, there are articles indexed on Google Scholar that consider the two synonymous or at least related:,   -- Vmenkov (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asked to join, but I know little - it is a traditional medicine with variable composition and uncertain effects. It is widely known in and around the area of the former Soviet Union, and seems like one class of substances with no clear separation within it. Thus for the sake of keeping the topic away from hype, merging is good. There is no question about deletion of the topic, it is clearly notable (say, there is an article on it in Great Soviet Encyclopedia). As to the article name, all proposals are just awkward transliterations anyway. Shilajit seems more common and less prone to variations than mo(u)mi(e/jo/yo/etc.) Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any volunteers? If you think it should be merged and are willing to take the time to do that, please volunteer (or merge it) now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 7 December 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.