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. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable monsters[edit]

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

The factual accuracy of this article is highly doubtful. There is no evidence that anyone other than the author refers to members of the genus Monstera as "vegetable monsters". The term, as used by Erasmus Darwin, did not refer to this genus specifically, but to a whole class of plants (see this quote). The etymology of the term "monster" is completely wrong (it derives from monere (to warn) in Latin). The "uses" section appears to be the author's own review of Darwin's The Botanic Garden. In sum, the "facts" of the article are wrong, and the opinions of the article are irrelevant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily. About as inaccurate as you can get. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would support the article's etymology of monster as coming from 'monstrum' - backed up by Wiktionary and my Times English Dictionary, which gives the meaning of monstrum as a portent. The TED gives the origin of Monstera as being due probably to the holes in the leaves giving an aberrant appearance. ~~As to the contents of Erasmus Darwin's work, I cannot comment - not having read it.~~ No, wait - I've found it. "[_Alcea_, l. 69. Flore pleno. Double hollyhock. The double flowers, so much admired by the florists, are termed by the botanist vegetable monsters". http://www.gramotey.com/?page=2&open_file=1195197382.9 So we have hollyhocks with double flowers not swiss cheeses - and he attributes the term to 'botanists', not his to own invention. This post started out as a 'Comment', but changed with a bit of research. Peridon (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible. JBsupreme (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misinformation. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Double-flowered Delete. The current Vegetable monsters article seems to mostly be WP:OR and/or wrong. The Erasmus Darwin quote "The double flowers, so much admired by the florists, are termed by the botanist vegetable monsters" makes it clear that these terms are synonymous (and a reading of the following paragraphs in Darwin makes it clear that this pertains to flowers only, not flowers or leaves as the article currently claims). Kingdon (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion below, doesn't really sound like we need a redirect. It isn't like this is a common term (like Hopeful monster), which makes it hard to come up with an appropriate target for a redirect. Erasmus Darwin, in that passage, is talking about double flowered, but teratology#In plants would make sense, as would Unusually shaped vegetable (per Curtis Clark's reaction), Plant creatures, and probably other choices. Kingdon (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I first saw the title, I was assuming "monster vegetables", such as 100 kg zucchinis. The article conflates several topics (Monstera deliciosa has no petals, iirc), and is not even amusing.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this is a plausible enough title to redirect, but if it is to be redirected, the target should be teratology#In plants. Hesperian 23:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were to be redirected teratology#In plants would be more appropriate than double-flowered. Lavateraguy (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2010 (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.