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 redirect to Omnivore. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polyvore[edit]

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

Is this necessary? Couldn't this be merged with another article. Also the reference is wikipedia Zzaffuto118 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD is not for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing a merger, I proposing deletion on the grounds that other articles probably already cover thisZzaffuto118 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a merger unless Polyvore is not a plausible redirect. James500 (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Plausible redirect to Omnivore if nothing else. See Kirk C. Kelsing. Comparative Avian Nutrition. Cab international. 1998. Page 1. Google books. Annales Zoologici. 1975. Volume 32. Page 315.
Comment "Polyvore" is just an unusual and archaic synonym for "omnivore." Pseudofusulina (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then redirect it to Omnivore. James500 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't been able to find this word in any dictionaries or webs searches. Probably not a plausible redirect. .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to omnivore as per [1]. If this was a real biological concept, we should be able to find a serious in-depth discussion about it. But all but 2 searches on Google Scholar are about a fashion company. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to omnivore History2007 (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to omnivore. --Ifnord (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Try searching for "polyvorous" and "polyvores" (plural). The first comes up with significantly more results (57 in Google Books), such as page 201 of a book called "Fundamental and applied aspects of invertebrate pathology" (1986) which says that in 1888 someone called Thaxter defined it as "omnivorous". Most of the results seem to be about microbes. I have no idea whether that is the same thing. I suggest trying "monovore", "monovores" and "monovorous" as well, though I haven't looked for those. James500 (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I also think that it is a straightfoward application of English (or perhaps Latin) that something that is an omni-vore ("eater of everything") is also going to be a poly-vore ("eater of multiple things") by definition (hyphens added for emphasis). James500 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:DONTBITE, in order that further refs be found and included. -- Trevj (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Omnivore", per P199. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 16 January 2012 (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.