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 no consensus. There are many !votes going in all directions, but at least it is clear that there is no consensus to delete. The other alternatives (draftify, merge elsewhere) can be discussed on the article's talk page. Should no improvement of the article or a meaningful discussion about alternatives be forthcoming, then there is no prejudice to a renomination after a reasonable amount of time. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of edible invasive species[edit]

List of edible invasive species (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)

Unreferenced and arbitrary list of plants and animals. An invasive species is a species that is not native to a specific location. This article doesnt recognise that fundamental fact.Rathfelder (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this article can be improved, but I think it does not warrant deletion. In the absence of better judging criteria for lists (haven't been able to source one for botanical species) the list seems fairly useful in a general basis and is obviously not promoting anything. Since it's educational and can serve as an excellent point of research for those interested in the subject, I think it should stay. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too vague for an article. Invasive to which location? Edible as in tasty or non-dangerous? --Michig (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article not based on any sources, indeed it says it was "listified" from a category, which of course had been constructed piecemeal and at random. The narrow taxonomic focus - higher plants and familiar animals - says volumes about the WP:ORish method of selection of these species. This listicle is a disgrace to Wikipedia - we need to be getting rid of the whole idea of the uncited list ("oh, it's all right, it's got bluelinks") and basing lists (if any) on comprehensive, reliable sources. It's been policy for years now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like there is a lack of sources, we just need to add them. Eating Aliens: One Man's Adventures Hunting Invasive Animal Species -- GreenC 15:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When the linked article says it is invasive and edible and cites these facts, then having it on this list uncited is not a big problem to me. I remind you that policy does not require every sentence on a page to be cited, only certain classes of fact. WP:LISTVERIFY explicitly says It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation. Items verified in their own article count as "obviously appropriate". SpinningSpark 21:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTVERIFY explicitly says: statements should be sourced where they appear. There is nothing obvious about anything on this list. Rathfelder (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Keep I'll have to agree with Spinningspark regarding the citations, but I would be open to merging this article with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species, this information should not be simply deleted. Garlicolive (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has potential for expansion, scope is limited enough to make a good article; could be referenced better though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything useful in the list it should be in Invasive species. It makes no sense as a separate article. Species which are seen as invasive in one context are obviously native in another.Rathfelder (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and reopen the previously deleted Category:Edible invasive species which is where this data was lifted from. Whilst I accept some of the points made regarding usefulness, I don't see why this needs an article to simply list what the category did. Perhaps if it were to be transitioned into an article, one could be made at Edible invasive species (itself currently a redirect) by lifting the section content it redirects to at Invasive_species#Invasivorism. This would then contain some more detail specific to the edible-nature of each listed item, rather than just a list. This list article to me serves no purpose, and I don't understand why it was lifted from a category in the first place. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands it is positively misleading. The only actual text states: It is illegal to propagate many of these species. It fails to notice that legality is jurisdictional. There is nothing illegal about the propagation of Brown trout where I live, for example, nor is there any suggestion in that article that it is illegal anywhere.Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: You need not reply to individual comments, particularly ones like my own which to a certain extent, takes on your points and concurs with your view on removal of the article. I suggested reopening the category as there would then not be any erroneous prose associated with it, though of course the matter of the listed species being "invasive" is still subjective. I think my proposal satisfies those who wish to retain some manner of list (as it was in the category), whilst allowing for some form of new article with an alternate structure and purpose, utilising existing prose elsewhere for the foundation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with your proposal. I didnt mean to suggest I wasnt.Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this list looks like it will require editors with quite a bit of knowledge of the subject (some editors may suggest original research) as there don't seem to be many books discussing this (heres one - Adventures in edible plant foraging). for example, there is no mention in the WP article of Acacia being invasive although they are, and, of course, their seeds are edible, another is the Oak (also not included in this list), edible (Acorn#Uses, here) and invasive (Quercus rubra#Invasion in Europe, Sawtooth Oak, English Oak) there are most probably numerous others. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or loosely redirect as to List of invasive species) see below: The problems with this article are that what is invasive in one place is non-invasive in another (so a bare list is insufficient), and so many of the species are edible (so this is likely to end up rather duplicative). Edible species can be marked (with or without conversion to tables) at individual lists -- see the linked ones at List of invasive species. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It passes WP:LISTN – see Scientific American for an interesting history of the concept. It just needs some focus on the cases where people have tried eating the invasive species as a way of combatting it. Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article/list should be developed and researched. No reason to delete. WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTCLEANUP It passes It passes WP:LISTN. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to avoid the issue of the article's scope being unclear (a species is invasive somewhere and non-invasive elsewhere), why not refocus the article to be about cases where it was prominently proposed to eat an invasive species as a way to deal with the invasion? ---a3nm (talk)d

• Comment: The article's lede was changed by Andrew D. to limit scope to cases where eating a species has been proposed or used as a population control measure. That's a better defined list, but scope would need to be defined to include or exclude use of invasive species as pet meat, fodder, etc., and if kept then such an article would need a rename to reflect the article's restricted scope. Even with reduced scope, the list is likely to include such exotics as cat, dog, cattle, pig, boar, deer, rabbit, hare, goat, horse, donkey, camel, rats, mice, squirrel, fox, possum... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very happy with that approach - but we would need evidence in respect of each species. Rathfelder (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Some invasion species were released on purpose to produce food, others just spread on their own. Any animal has edible meat, so should we include nutria? If a weed plant no one wanted is spreading about but it is technically edible, should it be listed? How about a list of just things that were released into the wild on purpose for food production and are now considered an undesirable invasive species by law makers? That'd make more sense. Dream Focus 20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Joe Roman, creator of the list's idea. Content likely shouldn't be its own article given lack of sourcing, but Roman is clearly notable enough for his own article and this should be mentioned more in depth there. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is agreement that in its present form it is no good, but if someone is prepared to do some work on it I am happy to withdraw my proposal.Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination cannot be withdrawn once there is support for deletion. However, I definitely agree with your conclusion that it needs work regardless of the outcome (unless, of course, it is ultimately deleted). ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion struck -- shifting to Draftify so that those who want to pivot can:

• a. agree on the scope of what the article is to pivot to; and
• b. decide on a suitable name that properly reflects this changed scope; and
• c. adequately source it

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - based on WP:FRINGE advice about eating invasive species - doesn't meet WP:NOTESAL, the list has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"; or WP:SUSTAINED, neither the list nor the fringe advice nave "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time" - Epinoia (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2019 (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.