Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms

WP:DSORGANISM

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:

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.
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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organisms. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Organisms

Eobacteria

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

Never accepted, and the two taxa it would have contained are junior synonyms. Not even worth merging anywhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator's rationale. (Cavalier-Smith has regularly proposed classifications which have not found support.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeotapirus

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

According to Cerdeño and Ginsburg in 1988, the name Palaeotapirus was invalidated by Depéret in 1904 because the fossils were more closely related to those of Chasmotherium (not a tapirid), and he replaced the genus name for "Tapirus" helveticus with Paratapirus. While this should sound like an easy redirect, the issue is that there seems to be one later-described species Palaeotapirus xiejiaheensis that may still be pending a reassessment. Also, on a side note, "Palaeotapirus yagii" was reclassified to the new genus Plesiotapirus. Whether or not the page should be kept, renamed, or redirected on the basis of one species pending a reassessment is worth discussing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally merge somewhere. This is an interesting piece of historical trivia that, while insufficient to support an article on its own, should be kept in the encyclopedia precisely for the purpose of preventing a reader who sees this word "in the wild" from continuing down a dead end of searching for meaning. BD2412 T 01:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tapir#Extinct_species: Was a valid thing, has valid supporting refs, but doesn't merit a full article. Merge to where it can be discussed, then redirect to there. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, or just Delete. Certainly no need to keep this as an invalid taxon. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, or else Delete. Not a sufficiently notable dubious taxon to justify an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]