Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of inedible fruits

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of inedible fruits

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This page is far too broad a topic to be covered as a list. Estimates of the total number of plant species currently described is around 374,000. The total flowering plants is about 295,383. (DOI:10.11646/phytotaxa.261.3.1) If even a quarter of these are inedible that is 73,000 entries. In addition to having a great deal of uncertainty of what would or would not count as a fruit for purposes of the list. Even more critically the line between what is or is not edible is fuzzy. Should fruits that are edible only with large amounts of processing go on the list or not? If this were a category it would be nominated as an example of over categorization. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Organisms, and Lists. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. Far too broad and loosely defined a topic to make for a particularly useful list. I can see some use in a list of inedible fruits of a particular group (eg. cucurbits), but this is just too non-specific. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is like "List of birds that are not chickens" - exactly the wrong way round to go at this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too broad and difficult to source as they can be inedible for many reasons. Without the reason for inedibility the list has little value. I can see a value in a more specific list of poisonous fruits (there is a List_of_poisonous_plants) or for ones on what we do eat, i.e. a list of edible fruits. There are lists for seeds, flowers, oils, nuts, and cacti), as well as the non-botanical list of culinary fruits and a remarkably specific List of edible plants and mushrooms of southeast Alaska. — Jts1882 | talk 07:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most "fruits" (as defined botanically) are considered "inedible" to/by humans, from the very tiniest to the very largest, and since there are millions of plant species that propagate via seeds inside "fruits", the absurdity of this article becomes obvious very quickly. That's even above and beyond the fact that this list is completely uncited, and there are already grave errors in it -- see Talk:List of inedible fruits. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. The title is far too broad, but the actual scope of the article is narrower - inedible berries (vernacular sense), or narrower yet ("false friend" berries). If there was consensus that an article of narrower scope is feasible this could be renamed. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to completeness issues, I note that potato isn't on the list, even though the poisonous fruits look like green tomatoes. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that "the actual scope of the article is narrower - inedible berries (vernacular sense), or narrower yet ("false friend" berries)" The scope per the title is "fruits" and the scope in the lead (which differs from the title) is "fleshy fruits". Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a list of berries would be a great deal narrower, but it would still run up against the problem of how to define edibility. For example, Pyracantha angustifolia on the list currently is listed as being too bitter for human consumption in its article. But the berries are used to make jam. [1] 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main article is enough. desmay (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I believe the list should be remodeled to "List of inedible fruits that a notable person has ever tried to eat". It would be more understandable and avoid unnecessary entries. Svartner (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally arbitrary list. Many of these are merely unpalatable, denigrated, or controversial famine foods. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2024 (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.