Deletion of List of edible invasive species

Comment: this list looks like it will require editors with quite a bit of knowledge of the subject (some editors may suggest |original research) as there don't seem to be many books discussing this (heres one - https://www.worldcat.org/title/adventures-in-edible-plant-foraging-finding-identifying-harvesting-and-preparing-native-and-invasive-wild-plants/oclc/1062335845&referer=brief_results ''Adventures in edible plant foraging''). for example, there is no mention in the WP article of Acacia being invasive https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/20702620.2014.999305 although they are, and, of course, Wattleseed|their seeds are edible, another is the Oak (also not included in this list), edible (Acorn#Uses, http://wildernessarena.com/food-water-shelter/food-food-water-shelter/food-procurement/edible-wild-plants/oak here) and invasive (Quercus rubra#Invasion in Europe, https://www.invasiveplantatlas.org/subject.html?sub=10086 Sawtooth Oak, https://www.invasiveplantatlas.org/subject.html?sub=10086 English Oak)  there are most probably numerous others
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: based on  advice about eating invasive species - doesn't meet , the list has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"; or , neither the list nor the fringe advice nave "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:NOTESAL||WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: When the linked article says it is invasive and edible and cites these facts, then having it on this list uncited is not a big problem to me.  I remind you that policy ''does not'' require every sentence on a page to be cited, only certain classes of fact.  explicitly says {{xt|It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation.}}  Items verified in their own article count as "obviously appropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTVERIFY)

Comment: article not based on any sources, indeed it says it was "listified" from a category, which of course had been constructed piecemeal and at random. The narrow taxonomic focus - higher plants and familiar animals - says volumes about the ish method of selection of these species. This listicle is a disgrace to Wikipedia - we need to be getting rid of the whole idea of the uncited list ("oh, it's all right, it's got bluelinks") and basing lists (if any) on comprehensive, reliable sources. It's been policy for years now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Article/list should be developed and researched. No reason to delete.  and  It passes It passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:LISTN)