Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheta esuriens


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn, with pleasure. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Atheta esuriens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any indication this is a valid or generally accepted species name. I checked Google, GBooks, and GScholar to start, and found only the source cited in the article. I then checked the four sources used as references for the List of Atheta species (ITIL, Catalogue of Life, GBIF and BugGuide), but none of them mentioned this name. Neither does NCBI Taxonomy Browser. I know we consider species to be inherently notable, but if this isn't an accepted species, can we really apply that standard?

I don't think it's suitable for a redirect since it isn't mentioned on the parent page/isn't confirmed valid yet.

I'm more than happy to withdraw if people with experience in this kind of thing think the single source is sufficient for validity (I'm not an expert by any means, just a backlog gnome armed with PetScan). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Howdy. Bit of a tricky one, but I'd be tempted to leave it be. The species is subsequently listed in this text which I'd regard as reputable. Given the preponderance of beetle articles which are probably in a similar situation, especially those with recently established bionomials I think this might be a worrying precedent to start deleting if they aren't named elsewhere on the ITIL, GBIF etc. which probably are just taking a while to catch up with the quagmire of Coleoptera taxonomy. Zakhx150 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zakhx15. The listing in the secondary source is sufficient confirmation. Trying to determine the validity of newly established species is not really our role -- tho it can be tempteing because we have quite a number of  expert editors s for many areas.  DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern was mainly that I couldn't find any secondary sources aside from the one published paper - usually I have no trouble finding at least mentions of species names, no matter how obscure. Not sure why that book didn't come up for me, but I'm happy to withdraw given the verification. Thanks, and . &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.