Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/О with left notch


 * 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 no consensus. Salvio giuliano 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

О with left notch

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

Possible hoax article? Unreferenced, does not seem to be in Unicode, Google seatch fails to find anything except material sourced from thid article. It has been added to Infobox Cyrillic letter, but is not found in List of Cyrillic letters. No corresponding article in any other language. The facts that the creating editor's username is User:Cyrilliclols and that they have also previously created a rejected draft article for a fictional alphabet, may also be relevant. Having said which, the glyph does occur on other wikis in edits dating back well before the creation of this article, and the image was created a long time ago, so this might be a good faith creation; but if so, it would still need a valid supporting cite to be kept.&mdash; The Anome (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It probably is. I have listed a source below. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 20:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Russian Wikipedia list of Cyrillic letters ru:Список букв кириллицы has an entry, where the letter is called О с зарубкой слева. It's sourced to this; I can't read that text (it's presumably in Bashkir), but the letter is visible in the image (#22 in the table), and the Russian caption indicates that this letter was part of a Bashkir alphabet proposed in 1910-1912 by Mstislav Kulaev (ru:Кулаев, Мстислав Александрович). This proposed alphabet doesn't appear to have seen wide use, but seems to have nevertheless been covered in sources: there are a few sentences about it at the end of ru:Башкирская_письменность, and these cite three references (which appear reliable). – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge seems like it deserves a spot somewhere if there is a suitable editor who is knowledgeable enough about Cyrillic to find the sources. But to my untrained eye, it looks like this is a marginal letter with little use. Maybe there could be a note or section somewhere about marginal/proposed letters? Not sure which would be the best place to merge, but agree it doesn't seem to have the notability/content for a page. JMWt (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as separate letter. https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2022/22154-old-cyrillic-bashkir.pdf shows the alphabet. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 18:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge: to Letters and typography on Cyrillic script. Justwatchmee (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

•Comment there is an article on the Bashkir alphabet. I don't know enough to comment on either it or this AFD, but when I looked at it I saw a big table of multiple writing systems. Elinruby (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing doesn't warrant a standalone article from List of Cyrillic letters. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer consistency among all the Cyrillic letters by having pages for all of them rather than have a few non-notable letters be relegated to a section in a table on a big list. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 16:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.