RFD discussion: February 2020–January 2022

The following information passed arequest for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Oppose deletion. I created the *jilъ entry so that it would serve as a landing-point for theProto-Slavic Wikipedia article which links to it in the noun tables. Additionally, if it were deleted, then the accentual information from the Verweij 1994, listing the noun as an Accent Paradigm-a noun, would be obscured. Finally,Vasmer lists the Russian descendant ил as being derived from an originally u-stem noun; so, it would be doing a disservice to readers to hide what very well may be the more accurate entry.BirdValiant (talk)02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Delete: Creating entries for alternative reconstructions is pointless. --{{victar|talk}}02:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Keep like any other alternative form that can be demonstrated to have existed synchronically. —Rua (mew)20:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose deletion. @Rua and @Victar, Why delete it?^[1] :v ——Gnosandes (talk)22:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Does Proto-Slavic actually distinguish word-initialji andjь, or are these simply notational variants of the same thing? If the two are truly phonemically distinct (i.e. if*jilъ and*jьlъ could have had different meanings and form a minimal pair), then I would not be opposed to keeping the entry separate. But if these are notational variants of the same sequence of phonemes, then I'd say this should be ahard redirect toReconstruction:Proto-Slavic/jьlъ. Since our Recsontruction pages are language-specific, we need have none of the qualms about hard redirects that we have in mainspace. —Mahāgaja ·talk19:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

• RFD-kept —Svārtava^{[t•c•u•r]}05:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply