Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorcus tenuihirsutus


 * 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   delete. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dorcus tenuihirsutus

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per lack of verifiable sources. This article has almost no content because "Dorcus tenuihirsutus" only has one non-Wikipedia hit on Google. I certainly think any life form on Earth deserves an article once it has been documented, however in this case the only thing that has really been documented is that it might exist.

The only source presented says "Sangil Kim ’10 believes he has found a new species of beetle". It also says the he has sent his findings to a renowned expert and "should they prove credible, Kim can hope to have his manuscript published within three months". This may not even be a new species, when they wrote the article they were waiting on the results. 2 years later no new article on the subject, perhaps his findings were not confirmed, perhaps they were. I don't know due to a lack of available reliable sources.

I suggest a "Not now" deletion, that is to say a deletion without prejudice of recreation once more sources exist. Chillum 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The source in the article seems reliable enough, and this seems a valid stub.  Not existing on teh interwebz is not automatically mean that sources do not exist at all.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had an indication that there was information about this species in a place other than the Internet(or on the Internet) then I would gladly accept that. Notability lies in the demonstration that something has been noted. I also think I failed to make my full case in my initial nomination, I have added to it. Chillum  04:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that the article about Kim was published last month (20 February 2009) and says he plans to submit his report to a scholarly journal in March (this month). Hence, we shouldn't even expect reliable sources to exist until a few months from now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article seemed unclear to me with its dates. Other than the publication date of the article the only other date is when he found the beetle, 2007. I am not really sure. Chillum  14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, with no prejudice against an article once a paper's been published. While there is a source here, it's not an scholarly source. WP:RS 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. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice per Zetawoof. A newly discovered species ought to be reported in scholarly sources to get included in this encyclopedia. Currently, the only source is a high school newspaper (Choate Rosemary Hall is a prep school, not a college). While it is admirable that the discoverer is going to send his report of the discovery to a scholarly journal, he needs to actually get it published in such a journal before Wikipedia lists the species. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zetawoof  rdunn  PLIB  10:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zetawolf. OK.  I have been convinced.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  14:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2009 (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.