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.
Cyrillic letters marked with the grave accent for syllabic stress (as used in dictionaries and readers), or to differentiate special letter usage, do not appear to represent distinct letters of any of the the respective alphabets. The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting
WP:GNG, but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter with
Grave accent or
Stress (linguistics).
(They are not even articles about Unicode code points, because these accented letters can be represented either by a code point or using a combining accent, for example U+0400 Ѐ, or U+0415 U+0300 Ѐ.)
Comment'I with grave looks like it is close to being properly sourced, which makes me think everything but Hard sign with grave may also be able to be properly sourced. I also don't know how to search for sources in say Bulgarian. I think a merge with
Grave accent is probably best at this time, but this could potentially be salvageable.
SportingFlyerT·C21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep all, I think, without prejudice to possible mergers or reconfigurations. Most are already cited to some degree, all are almost certainly citable, and it seems quite unlikely that any would actually fail the GNG. Of course this is really a
WP:NOT issue, so if not kept, soft redirect to Wiktionary (e.g.
wikt:Ѐ), which is much better equipped for providing such information as can be provided. I don't see plausible merge targets at either
grave accent or
Cyrillic script. I don't think bundled noms like this are very productive; I note that the nom refers to these as "RMs" but in fact the first tranche have already been soft-deleted without being merged anywhere, and without any input from anyone besides the nom. That seems like a really unsatisfactory way of making content decisions. --
Visviva (
talk)
02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I accidentally typed RM when I meant AFD. There’s nothing else wrong with this. As you can see it was an AFD, the procedure was followed, and notifications were posted widely.
Right. And no one has done so. The main argument to keep is “I don’t know,” accompanied by pure speculation about possibly meeting GNG, without any attempt to demonstrate it does.
The previous deletions have not been reversed or appealed. I’d be perfectly happy if someone did so with a valid rationale, but it has not materialized and I don’t think it exists.
This set is a bit different, because it concerns two different usage of the grave (as opposed to the acute), so I would be happy if it’s re-listed or gets wider input. Anyway. —MichaelZ.18:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to see if we can come to a consensus. So far we have an implicit delete (nom), a redirect, and a keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!*13:16, 25 July 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.