Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest vines

=[[:List of longest vines]]=

:{{la|1=List of longest vines}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=List of longest vines}})

Unfortunately, this list fails on the guidelines for notability of lists. WP:NLIST I have not been able to locate any source that discusses longest vines as a group. In addition I have not been able to locate any sources that support the claims for notability/inclusion of most of the list items. For example "Longest monocot". "The longest parasitic vine." etc.

This is a clear example of WP:SYNTH with the editors doing original research. This would make a great article in a popular science magazine, but WP:FORUM. Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of original publication.

I discussed these issues with the article's primary editor on the talk page, but they have not been able to provide any source that would deal with the notability issue. I placed a synth notice on the page in October of 2024 and no other editor has responded on the talk page or provided a source.

I don't know that there is anywhere appropriate to redirect this article to. Maybe to matchbox bean (Entada phaseoloides) as the probable longest vine. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This looks like original research without a notable subject behind it. I agree that there are no clear AtDs at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)