Deletion of Dorcus tenuihirsutus

Comment: with no prejudice against an article once a paper's been published. While there is a source here, it's not an scholarly source.  notes that "for information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories"; in this case, it's not unlikely that initial reports that this represented a new species were unfounded, or that the species was classified differently, or that it's still being worked on. In the absence of any ''scholarly'' sources or any mainstream coverage about this supposed new species (and one article in a college newspaper doesn't cross this threshold), an article is premature
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)