Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of edible flowers


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of edible flowers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There were substantial concerns raised at Talk:List of edible flowers that should be addressed. This list only cites the Plants for a Future database, which some feel isn't accurate and could be considered original research, especially since the author of this list appears to be involved with writing that website. If you have concerns about the PFAF database, then you might consider this article to fail WP:V and in the extreme, dangerous as proscriptive about which plants readers of our encyclopedia can or cannot eat. On the other end of the spectrum, you can argue that it just needs a thorough cleaning and citation, as many of our other lists on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Rkitko (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My first concern would be that a "list of edible flowers" is hopelessly broad and ill-defined.  It's certainly an interesting topic, but could we ever hope to come up with something that was comprehensive or encyclopaedic?  Sourcing is a second, and valid topic.  I would need to see some evidence as to why PFAF should be considered an RS for our purposes. So on the issue of sourcing, I'd say that the fact that it needs better sourcing shouldn't, in and of itself be grounds for deletion, just grounds for some pruning.  But on the issue of whether it's a viable list, I'm leaning towards "delete"...but I'd like to see what others have to say.  Guettarda (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete & Catagorify - If there is a Article on the plant, then it would make sense to state on that Article it is edible, with proper Citation. Then that article could be put into Category:Edible plants. To me, that would seem like the best way for us not to end up poisoning someone (as edible by some may be explained more compleatly in a Article, but less likely to happen in a List). Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone is using the category as a list they might not bother reading the article, with a list the information can be included in both places. Juzhong (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is the point I am making. Anyone looking at the :Cat (as you say "as a List") will have to actually read the Article to know Datura stramonium's (a Traditional medicine and Medicinal plant) effects, including death. A list, I do not believe, will be able to adequately state the fine line of difference, even the Article has a tough time with it. That being said, a refinement of the title to narrow the scope, may help. (eg. List of edible Common Garden flowers or List of edible English Garden flowers.. not sure, suggestions welcome) Exit2DOS2000  •T•C•  14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the previous version of the list had this: "Papaver rhoeas (Corn Poppy); only the petals; other parts are poisonous ". If you have your way, this will be in Category:Edible plants and you are relying on people to click on the link and search through the article before they eat one. Juzhong (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, an Index, List or :Cat of information is only to easely group similar information & direct the reader to the detailed information held in the Article. A simple List cannot detail the varied dangers and/or uses properly IMHO. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So because you can't "detail the varied dangers properly" you give no indication that it is poisonous. Juzhong (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So if your proposing this as a plain jane vanilla list of stuff, what would be the difference between this and a :Cat? Is it not going to present any Additional information? Whats it going to do that a :Cat cannot do? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be cited point by point; it will include both common and scientific names; it will include the cultivar name; it will include flowers that don't have articles yet, as long as they are cited; ideally it will explain where and when they have been eaten (eg Tulips in Holland during ww2); hopefully someone will make it into a sortable table. Also it won't just have Poppy it will have Poppy (only the petals; other parts are poisonous). Juzhong (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also you are proposing putting all plants with edible flowers in Category:Edible plants, so in fact there would be no practical way to find plants with edible flowers at all. Juzhong (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure there is, use a Sub-Category. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I echo the concerns of the above editors. The list isn't discriminate enough to be properly maintained, and as it stands there is no inclusion criteria or references. I don't think a category should be made on this subject either because the definition of what makes a plant "edible" is vague. Themfromspace (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate source for the purpose. It needs to be specified just what the criterion is, of course, instead of just giving the link. & its time we had a rule that UNMAINTAINABLE is a NONARGUMENT. Nothing is unmaintainable.  DGG (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that the article istoo broad in scope. The article needs guidelines for inclusion, but since the topic is so broad (what defines edibility?) an objective set of guidelines is impossible to establish. Themfromspace (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my point as well - it's too vague and too broad. "Edible flowers" basically means "All Angiosperms" - "Poisonous flowers" (although from some of the concerns raised, this list doesn't exclude all poisonous flowers).  "List of flowers used for food" would be a more useful list, although even that is likely to be horribly unbalanced if presented as a single, worldwide list.  Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Edible flower means "flower described by a WP:Reliable source as edible". Juzhong (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * UNMAINTAINABLE seems like a negative variation of WP:EFFORT. Juzhong (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disclaimer I am original author of the page and also webmaster of the Plants for a Future website, but not the compiler of the database there. The first question is is a List of Edible flowers a suitable encylopedic topic and I would contend that it is. Categofying to Category:Edible plants would lose half the information and that category is very inadaquate with only a small fraction of the known edible plants. As to sourcing there are a considerable number of independent sources which could be used, indeed it would be much better to spend time searching these sources. The Plants for a Future site does itself draw on many references which are cited in the text so there is a good chain of verifiability of this information. I do think the list could do with a large prune and much better referencing but deletion is a poor option. --Salix (talk): 09:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Salix, I pruned it for you. If you put things back please keep them cited to independent, reliable sources. Juzhong (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, and prune. I don't think there is a sharp dividing line between edible and inedible so a list is superior to a category. Ideally it should note who said it is edible and any qualifications (like "white heel removed" or "first boil for 3 days"). Juzhong (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even that is a fine line to walk ... see WP:NOTHOWTO. It feels like information about the plant, and so should be in the Article about the plant. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's information about the edibility of the flower. Juzhong (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * pruning is no longer necessary Juzhong (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT?
 * What? Juzhong (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Edible flowers is a very notable subject in cooking and botany that is easily verifiable. The list needs a lot of work, but the topic is valid and worthy of treatment in Wikipedia. Needing clean up is not a reason for deletion. Why, just today I encountered someone looking for a resource on this. Steven Walling (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Edible flowers suffices (it has its own, different, list), but am not really sure. Most of the argument seems to be over what the list and/or article might evolve to, not what they are now, which makes it a bit hard for me to get my mind around it. Kingdon (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's short now because I "pruned" it. The main difference between this list and the one in Edible flowers is the fact that this one is well-sourced, and the other is very poorly sourced. Ideally there would be a shorter list of representative flowers in the main article as well as a separate, more comprehensive list, which I'm hoping this will grow back into. Something like List of culinary nuts but better cited. Juzhong (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, it is out there in limbo, kind of. The concerns on the talk page merited some kind of discussion, so I didn't intend to nominate it for deletion, per se (I haven't even made my position clear yet), but rather get some additional input. It was quite a mess and I do share the legitimate concern of the verifiability or conflict of interest caused by the old list's PFAF connection. If it had been a featured list with many sources and sortable table that listed each taxon's edible and poisonous parts, there would be little concern. --Rkitko (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments for retention presented above. John254 16:41, 1 January 2009 (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.