Deletion of Syagrus atricolor

Comment: Species are generally considered notable per . As such, species very rarely appear at AfD and deletions are often snowclosed after several people cite SPECIESOUTCOMES related rationales. I haven't seen much discussion about the fuzzy edges of notability for species, and this really looks like an edge case. I haven't seen any species come to AfD with as poor an internet presence as this one. The only Google results for "Syagrus atricolor" are related to Wikipedia and Stefano Zoia's chyrosmelidae.it (which is the source cited in the article). Chrysomelidae.it has the disclaimer that it is "under construction and may contain unpublished data in relation to progress in my researches". From chrysomelidae.it, the original description of the species is apparently in https://books.google.com/books/about/Opuscula_martialis.html?id=GUdDAAAAYAAJ Opuscula martialis which I can't view in detail. Nobody has really mentioned this species again since it was first described in 1940, though Stefano Zoia includes it in his work in progress. Given the absence of recent sources accepting the species, I'd guess Zoia will probably end up synonymizing it with another species, but without an explicit statement of synonymy, there's nowhere to redirect. If you dig deep enough into the taxonomic literature, there are thousands of species names that haven't been mentioned again since they were first described. Zoia is digging up some obscure stuff and the question remains whether an unchallenged original description satisfies the assumptions of SPECIESOUTCOMES as well as whether Zoia's work in progress necromancy of obscure names is a reliable source
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES)

Comment: I'm all for  conclusions, and I've been known to bail terrible species sub-stubs out of AFD myself. ''However'', in ''this'' case, it doesn't make the bar. Literally, without exaggeration, the only place this species has been listed in the published literature is in Pic's original description in the 1940 special issue of ''Opuscula martialis''. That's made more problematic for the project's standards because Pic ''published'' the periodical in question; he described this (and a lot of other) beetles in his own journal. As noted above, a lot of Pic's descriptions are, um, ''sparse'', and don't really serve to describe species sufficiently for modern taxonomy (bonus complication: a lot of these beetles are sexually dimorphic). Outside of that original publication (and Wikipedia mirrors), the only place poor ''Syagrus atricolor'' gets mentioned is at the cited website. But that's probably not an acceptable source for this for the project either. Stefano Zoia is unquestionably an expert in the field, but that website's listing of species is basically an online version of his in-progress research notes as he attempts a comprehensive revision of the relevant taxonomy; at this point, it's a self-published source. It's not even in super-low inclusion threshold databases like GBIF. If we had an article for ''Syargus'' (and we should), I'd have no problem including this on a list of species there (citing Pic), at least until someone publishes something—''anything''—clarifying the taxonomy. But we don't, and I don't think the available source-and-a-half clear the notability guidelines,  or no
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES||WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES)

Comment: I'm generally one of those who point to , and I don't see a problem with, eventually, having an article for every species ever recognized. However, just about any other case that has come up so far has had at least a few items of interest connected with the species; this one just seems randomly obscure (and as Plantdrew acutely notes above, may have surfaced from obscurity merely to be reclassified in the near future). As such it really is testing the boundaries of what is , after all, not a binding rule re notability. {{u|Rubbish computer}}, can you maybe comment on what prompted you to create the article in the first place
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES)