Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquivore

:{{la|Liquivore}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liquivore Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Liquivore}})

Despite the claim on the talk page that this is a legitimate term used in science, I can't find the slightest indication that that is the case. I have searched: Google, GScholar, PubMed, the Animal Biosciences section of [http://www.annualreviews.org Annual Reviews], Science Magazine & its related publications, ScienceDirect, and World Scientific and haven't come up with so much as a single hit even using this term, let alone describing it in an in-depth fashion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - especially now that the author has kindly provided a built-in disclaimer cutting off all claims of notability at the knees... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete The scientific name for the topic at hand is extra-oral digestion, "also known as external digestion, extra-corporal digestion, extra-intestinal digestion, or pre-oral digestion".{{cite journal | last=Cohen | first=Allen Carson | title=Solid-to-Liquid Feeding: The Inside(s) Story of Extra-Oral Digestion in Predaceous Arthropoda - American Entomologist | journal=American Entomologist | volume=44 | issue=2 | date=Apr 1, 1998 | issn=1046-2821 | doi=10.1093/ae/44.2.103 | pages=103–117 | url=https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/44/2/103/2474577 | access-date=Dec 18, 2017}} An article should be written on this; it could start as a section of digestion, which is currently so biased towards vertebrates that extra-oral digestion is barely alluded to. However, the article under discussion has no reliable citations, and the text isn't substantive enough to be worth moving or merging. FourViolas (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

• Delete Initially, I was mixed, thinking "well, it's a stub, but seems reasonable that it would be added on to" then I saw this stinker was made in 2006 and I too could find roughly zero references that this was even a thing. I would of said "merge" but I don't really think there's anything worth merging here, which sucks. :D Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete There are plenty of well-written articles about notable fictional words, but it's important to draw the line between fact and fiction. We can't take a fictional concept and apply it to the real world as a legitimate scientific term. Fictional liquivores seem to be too obscure to be considered notable. –dlthewave ☎ 05:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.