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. Insufficient reliable sources to establish it as a species. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybe cyanofriscosa[edit]

Psilocybe cyanofriscosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is not a formally described species, which is the impression given in the article. It is something that has been described by the hobbyist community in the sf bay area in recent years. There is no published analysis or description of it, and it has recently been suggested that it may in fact be one and the same as Psilocybe subaeruginosa, but DNA analysis is pending.

The article, at least until there is a published description, cannot possibly ever be adequately sourced with sources that meet WP:RS. It contains little information currently, and is potentially misleading (since it makes it appear to be a proper species.)

Eventually I'd like to make an article on the whole caramel capped psilocybe complex (section cyanescens) and in that article integrate the most reliably sourced information I can find about psilocybe "cyanofriscosa," but until I get around to doing so I think this article is probably better deleted. Kevin (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wish you luck. I'm not a mycologist, but I do know that Psilocybe is a variable genus according to whether you are a lumper or a splitter. (Heck - most fungi are... Don't talk to me about British orchids.) Possibly make it a redirect to Psilocybe for the time being. Peridon (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly irrelevant comment - I hope the picture can be kept somewhere. I love it! Peridon (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making that a Redirect as a !vote rather than a comment. Either to Psilocybe or perhaps better to Psilocybe subaeruginosa. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it really is one hell of a picture. I'll see if I can't throw it in to the genus Psilocybe article later, since there is at least no doubt that the mushroom pictured is a psilocybe. Kevin (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this species exist only on the internet. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You want to be responsible, and not give anyone a false impression of the scientific veracity of this alleged species. So don't. Make the status of the thing clear, cite it, job well done. I don't see the problem. It doesn't even matter if it proves to be a false identificaton, if it is all over the internet, it is notable, no? Anarchangel (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet presence does not establish notability and your post seems to be a form of WP:GHITS. It's likely that there is literally not a single reliable source in existence at the moment that talks about psilocybe 'cyanofriscosa'. Currently, it certainly fails the GNG. I'd eventually like it to have some sort of coverage (but there's no fitting article to stick it in right now,) but it will/should be a slight mention on a different page; as a standalone page there's no way in hell an article can meet WP:N and even getting it to meet WP:V will take very broad interpretation of the standard. (WP:N//WP:V of course may be met if a scientific paper or other reliable source is published about it, but we shouldn't keep the article around just in case that happens, WP:CRYSTAL.)

I would like to incorporate psilocybe 'cyanofriscosa' somehow (probably in the context of talking about a hobbyist observed phenomenon) into a broader article on the caramel-capped psilocybe complex eventually, although even then I'm not sure how I can possibly get the sourcing up to snuff... I haven't written such an article anyway yet, since it is a pretty complicated project that will require me to dig up a number of older papers that will take more time than I currently have. (Since notability guidelines do not apply to every piece of contents on individual articles, only the topic as a whole, so a mention of 'cyanofriscosa' on a page about the caramel-capped complex as a whole wouldn't have to pass notability muster.) Kevin (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it appears to be a reasonably notable species. Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my other posts on this page, and if you have looked over them and still feel this way, please elaborate. (Specifically, about why it should be kept given that there is (in a literal sense) no way that it has any coverage in reliable sources to establish verifiability or notability, and if it should be kept as a standalone article how I can write that article to meet WP:V//WP:RS concerns.) Kevin (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Not validly published, and no reliable sources to document its existence. It is not possible to expand this article any further (i.e. properly, using reliable sources), and like Kgorman-ucb says, its presence here is misleading. Sasata (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't think it is a requirement that a species be formally described in order for it to have an article. The article could address the fact that there has not yet been a formal description. Even if it is a disputed species, an article may be appropriate, of course addressing the dispute in the lede. That said, I see no evidence of notability in valid published sources for this item, so deletion may still be appropriate. Alternatively, if there is a reliable source discussing that this may be the same as Psilocybe subaeruginosa, but DNA analysis is pending, a redirect to Psilocybe subaeruginosa may be appropriate, with a comment within that article to that effect. Rlendog (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only source in the article is http://mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name?_js=on&_new=true&id=5353, which says at the top: "Better than it was before. Better…Stronger…Faster! Thanks to donors and Jason!" This is clearly not a reliable source. Those who support retention have not provided reliable sources about the subject. Because no reliable sources discuss it, it fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Further, a redirect would be inappropriate since there is no evidence of reliable source's having mentioned Psilocybe cyanofriscosa. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2011 (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.