Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syagrus atricolor
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 Chrysomelidae.it has the disclaimer that it is "under construction and may contain unpublished data in relation to progress in my researches".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
— User:Plantdrew, 02:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)