Reconstruction talk:Latin/amo
Deletion debate
[edit]- Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/February#Reconstruction:Latin.2Famare
- Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Reconstruction:Latin.2Famo
--Barytonesis (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
It's true that the lemma form is attested in classical Latin, but many of the non-lemma forms are unattested though they can be readily ascertained by the Romance forms. Is that not enough reason to keep the page? (This is an actual question, not a rhetorical oneǃ) — This unsigned comment was added by Tectosax (talk • contribs).
- Delete, but we could have an Appendix showing Vulgar Latin conjugation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- RFDO failed. All links to it removed and descendants moved back to the mainspace entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
I may have missed this, but since when were we adding Vulgar Latin entries for attested Latin terms? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe see also Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/February#Reconstruction:Latin/amare. -Slœtel (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. It seems that there is indeed no reason to keep this entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per Tea Room discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- I’m leaning towards delete, but it may be worth keeping if any scholars have proposed an unattested sense. (On the other hand, the said sense could simply go to the mainspace.) — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It's true that the lemma form is attested in classical Latin, but many of the non-lemma forms are unattested though they can be readily ascertained by the Romance forms. Is that not enough reason to keep the page? (This is an actual question, not a rhetorical oneǃ) — This unsigned comment was added by Tectosax (talk • contribs).
- Delete, see below. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Has been deleted for some time now --Genecioso (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)