Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syagrus atricolor
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
— User:Squeamish, 15:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES||WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)