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 keep. A notice suggesting that some of the comments from this discussion may be implemented was placed on the talk pages of the articles in question. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybin mushroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Duplicate content from Psilocybin Saberking321 (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep content isnt an duplicate, Psilocybin and Psilocybin mushroom are completly different? --TheImaCow (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the articles you will find that the content is in fact the same. Saberking321 (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep articles are about two different things, not duplication. one is a chemical compound, the other a mushroom that has the compound (along with other compounds) Epluribusunumyall (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: "Psilocybin mushroom" is not a mushroom. It is a term which can be used to refer to many different fungi which contain psilocybin. Saberking321 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While it may initially seem that two articles are warranted, if one checks the article one will see that all of the material in Psilocybin mushroom is contained in Psilocybin. Now perhaps there is content which should be included in Psilocybin mushroom which is not already contained in Psilocybin, however I cannot think of anything and the fact that there is nothing there yet suggests that the article is pointless Saberking321 (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid that both sides are right here. There is a genuine basis for 2 different articles; and the content of the two existing articles overlaps excessively. What is required is thorough editing to cut them down to focus only on their individual topics, one the chemical and the other the various kinds of mushroom. The law on the two things is in fact different, for example; and the mushrooms have been venerated by the Aztecs when they had no knowledge of the chemical. Therefore, there is content on chemistry which is not needed in more than short summary form in the mushroom article, and content on ritual and other usage which is not needed in the chemical article. The formal result should therefore be Keep but nom is correct that the articles as they now exist need radical editing.

Editors may wish to look at the articles on the Foxgloves (Digitalis, a genus of plants) and Digoxin (a chemical derived from them) for how this separation of topics can be achieved for a Plant + Product combination. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good starting point, however may I note that while Digitalis is a genus, psilocybin occurs in many different genera. The only thing in common between different species of fungi containing psilocybin is the fact that they are fungi and that they contain psilocybin. This makes it very difficult to include any information which is not either about psilocybin or about fungi in general. We could similarly have a page called "Red mushrooms" or "Poisonous mushrooms", both clearly silly as there is no biological connection between the various species grouped together under the heading. Saberking321 (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chiswick Chap has the right of it. We should have two separate articles without much overlap. We do have one expansive treatment plus what amounts to a large excerpt with some added frills. Keep but someone will have to lose an afternoon to disentangle these. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the pages should be cleaned up to remove duplication, but they should definitely be kept as two separate articles. Eindiran (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and pare down duplication as per above.Aervanath (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, there's overlap, but they are two different topics. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. The current state of the article doesn't affect the notability of the topic. A quick Google Books search shows that there are dozens of books written about psilocybin mushrooms; it's an obviously notable topic for an article. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This article should not be deleted, but improved if neede — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.245.244 (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2020 (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.