This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Organisms. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Organisms|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organisms.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms/archive

Mordella auropubescens

Mordella auropubescens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Looks like Mordella is a wastebin taxa that needs a lot of rework. I concur this appears to be a species that is no longer accepted. With no information more than what is on the article, I can't support maintaining this article. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES since this looks like it's not a valid species name. If anyone can dig into the sources for the other species name changes, maybe that might give a clue as to what's going on with the entire genus, but it sounds like it may be defunct. KoA (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something is definitely up with that. CoL lists no species within the genus, but offers half a dozen synonymized instances, so at the very least there have been a lot of reassignments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1] the original description is in "Arb. morph. tax. Ent. 3, 215". Plantdrew (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You may be right, but IRMNG seems to accept the species. See https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11516213 Note that the words after Environment (marine, brackish) are struck out. We have an article on Tomoxioda auropubescens Ermisch, 1950, which is also a beetle, and which shares the same specific epithet as Mordella auropubescens. That's not enough evidence that Tomoxioda auropubescens is the new name for Mordella auropubescens, but it's a strong hint that someone who knows more about beetles than I do might want to explore. If this is a simple change of genus, the good article should have an explanation of that added, and the bad article could be replaced with a redirect to the good name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG added it because GBIF added it. But then GBIF deleted it, and I don't think IRMNG deletes it when GBIF does, so its presence in IRMNG doesn't hold much weight. And T. auropubesens was also deleted at GBIF, so is probably not long for the AFD route... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've found the original description. [2] The holotype is from Brazil. I have not yet found the text of Ermisch's description of T. auropubescens but it was apparently published in "Die Gattungen der Mordelliden der Welt. Entomologische Blätter 45-46: 34-92" with a type from Sumatra, so apparently unrelated. Choess (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hormomitaria

Hormomitaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and the article is too short and doesn't cite any sources at all. GoodHue291 (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Deletion discussion is unnecessary, just redirect this junior synonym to the currently accepted genus name, Physalacria, per Index Fungorum (it's already listed at the target article as a synonym). Esculenta (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Physalacria: Apparently just another name for the genus. Aintabli (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree redirect to synonym, Physalacria. Mgp28 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]