Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shroomery

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Shroomery

[edit]

Advertisement for a Web site. —msh210 18:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Erowid is also allowed. The Shroomery is what Google is in the search engine world.
  • Del —msh210 18:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was dubious at first, because it was presented as a poorly written advertisement, but cleaned up and wikified (and it needs more NPoVing), it makes a reasonable article about a genuinely existing site. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just because it exists doesn't mean we need an article about it. RickK 21:05, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alexa rank of 43,579 [1]. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Dave the Red (talk) 21:44, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 23:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deletionists are harsh, keep and allow for organic growth man. Klonimus 00:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per alexa rank 210,000 google hits which seem mostly relevant, and uniqueness Kappa 07:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Kappa, I don't mean to affront your intellegence, but a high alexa rank is one close to 1, not one close to 43,579... Halidecyphon 08:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • So if I interpret this correctly, it's one of the top 50,000 sites on the web. Kappa 09:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, if you look at the alexa history page, they don't even do that well. For much of the past 2 years, they couldn't even make the chart. The 43k rank is a 3 month-average spot ranking and is comparatively poor as websites go. By the way, their average rank measured just over the past week is 85,057. I'm inclined to agree with DaveTheRed that this doesn't make the cut. Delete. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Please don't break up my comment like that.
  • Delete and add as external link on relavent pages.Halidecyphon 08:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Halidecyphon. Radiant_* 08:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is borderline for me, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 09:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs to be improved, but it definately should not be removed. The Shroomery is far more than just another website. Meanwhile the 'deletionists' could as well start with deleting DeviantART, Erowid, Worth1000 and many other Wikipedia articles... Ivi 23:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I believe this vote was made in good faith but it should be noted that this user has a light contribution history.
      • I find this information irrelevant to this topic. Is there anything wrong with being a newbie? 83.223.132.198 14:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Unfortunately, on VfD discussions it is relevant. We have had such serious problems with users creating sockpuppets in an attempt to bias the results of various discussions that we were forced to put in a general prohibition on votes of anonymous and very new users. Facts and evidence that contribute to the discussion are welcome from anyone but value judgments such as "keep" or "delete" are subject to steep discounting by the deciding admin. See WP:GVFD for more discussion. By the way, I'm the one who moved the vote down so that it was in chronological order. Rossami (talk)
    • For the record, anon user:83.223.132.198 has made edits to this vote and comments in the edit summaries which make it likely that they are the same person.
      • Well, duhhhh, smartass! I don't always care to log in.
  • Keep. pretty unique, hence notable. Mikkalai 03:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The shroomery is a horrible excuse for an entheogenic community and it is about hard drugs such as crystal methamphetamine, cocaine/crack, and heroin. If one wants proof of this do a search in the other drugs fourm for these topics.
    • unsigned comment by anon user:146.186.210.6
    • Comment: The site is about mushrooms. There is a forum about other drugs though, but what is wrong with information about drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine and heroin? --AnnoM 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep its a great site many people come together on and make friends and even sometimes fall in love there is nothing wrong with the shroomery its a great site
    • unsigned comment by user:KristiMidocean. This is his/her only contribution to date to Wikipedia
    • I fail to see how a lack of contributions or a newbie status detracts from the relevance. I thought the whole point of this website was ANYONE can edit it and contribute? Not everyone registers for contributions and IP addresses change. --JeffM24 03:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a primary resource for people interested in psychedelic mushrooms a large site with a large communitiy of users. I believe this to be notable Jackliddle 14:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is THE site in the magic mushroom world. It's like Erowid specialized on mushrooms. AnnoM 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • new user whose only contributions to date have been to this article and this VfD discussion
  • Delete feels like an advertisement/vanity, I don't see establishment of notability. --InShaneee 17:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Go delete Erowid as well. You have to be consistent. AnnoM 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • this reply was actually left by anon user:83.117.2.18
        • No, it was left by me, AnnoM 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Just clean it up and make it sound less like an advertisement. Redstorm
  • Keep This place a-going! Regardless of the tangent these forums have taken, they still serve their original purpose of dispelling dangerous mis-information about magic mushrooms. ~Duk~
    • comment left by user:ToiletDuk whose only edits so far are this vote. Please sign your edits using four tildes (~~~~)
  • Keep I edited it so it sounds less like an ad, and the ties to the Brandon Vedas story make it significant.
  • Keep Shroomery is THE resource for magic mushrooms on the net and I feel it deserves its own page. I've contributed to articles as an unregistered user so spare me the elitism JeffM24 04:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • this comment was actually left by anonymous user:24.14.63.3. I'm sorry you see it as "elitism". The rest of us see it as evidence.
    • evidence of what? that is my IP address-- besides my IP changes whenever my ISP does major maintenence (in other words OFTEN) JeffM24 04:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The Shroomery is a valuable resource for mushroom information and has a huge community of friendly people.
  • Comment. The history is a good addition. This article isn't much more deletion-worthy than JLF, and apparently a lot of people have heard of the Shroomery. Rad Racer | Talk 01:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The Shroomery is a unique website with over 31,000 registered users. It definitely is a source of knowledge, and like Erowid and other sites, should be mentioned here on Wikipedia. It is primarily about mushrooms, and even though hard drugs like heroin and such are discussed for the sake of information, isn't it the same with Wikipedia? Wikipedia has entire articles on drugs ranging from the harmless like cannabis to the harmful like tobacco and heroin. Don't limit the exchange of information. -Ravus
  • Keep The Shroomery is a very useful site that has been helpful to many people. The information given on the site has many people avoid bad decisions that could have led to death. If this article was to be deleted, then so should Erowid and such. 68.3.77.159 23:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User's second edit. --InShaneee 02:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Erowid is well known. But the Shroomery? Not notable, unless someone can provide a link to the "negative media coverage" referenced in the article. --Sean κ. ⇔ 10:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.brandonvedas.com/press.html

Weak keep. I've heard of it before, and the website is apparently common knowledge among druggies. Not exactly on par with the cultural relevance of Erowid, of which one of the primary purposes of the site is to explore the effect of various drugs on consciousness. This seems to be almost entirely an informational resource, which is fine, but not necessarily wiki-worthy. However, the significance of the site in the drug-using community, it's uniqueness, and its overall popularity make it a keep. Quit with the sock puppets already, people. --Kaelus 23:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertising --Neigel von Teighen 23:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The Shroomery contains a vast library of information, and makes a valuable contribution to the entheogenic community. Clean it up so it doesn't sound so much like an advertisement, but let it stay. --Paradigm 07:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion on sight. Socks B Gone. —Korath (Talk) 14:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CryptoDerk 00:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Shroomery&oldid=1138855426"