Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thaicrucia

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 redirect‎ to Proteus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thaicrucia[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source to mention this figure is the Clementine Recognitions, as part of its clearly anti-pagan "black catalogue" of Jupiter's "adulteries". Not mentioned in any secondary source, even the most comprehensive encyclopedias such as Smith and Brill's New Pauly, so the article fails WP:GNG. There is also nothing here which isn't already at Proteus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus, per WP:ATD-R. —siro χ o 00:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reason given.★Trekker (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus, per WP:ATD-R. Thaicrucia seems to appear in "A Catalogue of Virtuous Women. Myth and Mythography in Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4, 19,118-123" as a secondary source, but I don't have access and so cannot say if she is just mentioned there or actually discussed. Daranios (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I apparently stand corrected in my claim that she is not mentioned in any secondary source. Looking at the article in question, though, her only mention is in note 56 on p. 429, which states: Only four names out of thirty-five in the first list (Phoenissa, Thaicrucia, Cotonia, and the second Hippodamia) and one out of seven in the second (Manthea) do not follow the alphabetical arrangement. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Proteus is technically a merge, since it preserves the history of the stub and ensures that editors can check whether there was anything that needed to be changed in the target article. But that's perfectly appropriate, and the same should be done for this and the associated Nympheus. P Aculeius (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.