Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hylaeus and Rhoecus

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 Atalanta. Content seems to be there already, but some may want to merge the sources. Sandstein 10:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hylaeus and Rhoecus

[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)

Only primary sources, seemingly not of independent interest, but can probably redirect to Atalanta. Geschichte (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Atalanta, unless there's another topic that would be more appropriate ("list of centaurs" appears to concern asteroids). The sources are fine, however. P Aculeius (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found these from a quick gsearch - the two centaurs being shot by Atalanta, the masked bee genus of around 130 species named after the centaur Hylaeus, some sort of merge/redirect to Atalanta may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the primary sources mentioned above by user Geschichte is listed, together with another one, in William Smith's, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (originally published in 1848) on the subject, available at perseus.tufts.edu. I kept the reference to the second original source of the article, and replaced the refercence to its first original source by a single one to the Dictionary (through which both original sources listed there can be reached), and also corrected a couple of mistakes (factual and philological) [1]. I think that a reference to a modern or contemporary reliable source has to be added, too. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2020 (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.