Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melera


 * 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 and redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Pandora (daughter of Deucalion). Less Unless (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Melera

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The subject of the article is only mentioned in one source, the Clementine Recognitions (10.21), which gives them the briefest of mentions ("and Melera") in a list. The source is clearly anti-pagan, the mention being part of a "black catalogue" of Jupiter's affairs. There exist no secondary sources (to my knowledge) which mention such a figure, and so the article fails WP:GNG. Michael Aurel (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pandora (daughter of Deucalion). I can find no evidence of secondary sources discussing Melera – even the usually over-comprehensive Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology doesn't mention him, nor does the Oxford Classical Dictionary or Brill's New Pauly. He could be redirected to Pandora (daughter of Deucalion) and tagged as R from relative as he is mentioned in that article, but she seems to barely get any secondary source coverage herself and could possibly even be merged to Deucalion. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Deletion, or Redirect to Pandora (daughter of Deucalion). I'm generally an Inclusionist but ... there are limits. Paul August &#9742; 11:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case, a redirect is essentially the same as a merge into Pandora (daughter of Deucalion), since the only essential fact and all three cited sources are already there. So do that: it's consistent with inclusionism, and that way nothing useful will be lost.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2023 (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.