Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deadliest plants to humans


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

List of deadliest plants to humans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I doubt that Gizmodo is an authoritative source for this list. Wikipedia should not regurgitate dubious press articles.

Gizmodo provides zero refs for the core assertion it makes in its list - that these are the deadliest plants. So are these the deadliest plants to humans, worldwide? Or was this just a way of the writer earning $50? Who knows.

Where is, for instance, Atropa belladonna, "one of the most toxic plants found in the Eastern Hemisphere"? Why are these ten listed in preference to any of the 466 listed at Category:Poisonous plants?

Clearly, I'm not arguing that these are not extremely poisonous plants. I am arguing that the basic premise of the list is flawed; that these are not the deadliest plants; and so their presentation as if they were, on the basis of a one-off popular press article, is (or should be) the antithesis of wikipedia.

What we do know is that we're seeking to be an authoritative encyclopedia, not a reprinter of any old crap found on the internet. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep active This Article should stay active. I created this article just like I created List of deadliest animals to humans because Humans deserve to know what we is need to keep up safe. We need this for survival of Humanity.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Not an article, no justification for use of a single source for these items or notability of topic as presented. List of poisonous plants is good already. Reywas92Talk 23:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of poisonous plants, but failing that delete. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is a Britannica article "7 of the World’s Deadliest Plants" so based on that it could be argued that it is an encyclopedia topic, but only four of the Britannica plants are on this list, although the others could be added. But how to define "deadliest"? Where to draw the line between the deadliest and the merely deadly? The references to Gizmodo, Zidbits and MNN are not authoritative. I think the "List of deadliest plants to humans" is covered by List of poisonous plants (also, the article title should be "List of plants deadliest to humans") - Epinoia (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The comparison was made to the List of deadliest animals to humans article; while that article has it's own problems, at least it tries to quantify what it's talking about. Assuming that these are the most toxic, that doesn't necessarily make them the deadliest. Guettarda (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would think "deadliest" would mean the plant that kills the most humans. I know that will not satisfy some when stuff like peanuts are an the list though. (Please sign this comment--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC))
 * Delete There are no metrics to define "deadliest," making this just a list of plants that happen to be deadly. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Non-encyclopedic, taken entirely from one source, built on a false premise, unnecessary fork of List of poisonous plants, etc.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not sure why this deserves an independent article.Rollidan (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete  Per Rorschma. This type of article subject goes against WP:NOT and the sources are nowhere enough to satisfy guidelines.  THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, This is not an article, WP:NOT, Alex-h (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless it is rapidly and drastically improved with proper sources to justify and quantify the claim's of 'deadliest' for each species and/or genus, this article should go quietly, as it's currently just a random selection of fairly toxic plant taxa. Although there are a number of books and sources available which talk about toxic plants, searching online I have not been unable to find any which give comparative figures for either toxicity or statistics for any given taxon causing death in humans. The author seems to think this page will somehow rescue humanity from itself by alerting them to the risks. God help us all if we rely on stuff like this to save us. (COI Declaration: As a three year old, I nearly died as a result of swallowing numerous Laburnum seeds in my garden.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete We could have such a list, and there are measures and studies on relative toxicity on which it could be based, but Gizmodo isn't an RS on any of it. There's also a factor of length: no reason to have a separate list just for ten items, if they can be incorporated smoothly into the main list. Finally, for the OP's argument that "people deserve to know": Wikipedia isn't a plant classification guide, and even if it were - no guide worth its salt would confine itself to a "ten most..." list when items 11-20 are just as deadly. François Robere (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (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.