Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yat with acute


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Yat. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yat with acute

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

Cyrillic letters marked with the acute accent for syllabic stress (as used in dictionaries and readers) are not distinct letters or “stressed variants” of letters. The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting WP:GNG, but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter (Yat) with Acute accent or Stress (linguistics).

See the previous deletion discussion regarding nine articles at Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic). —Michael Z. 17:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Europe.  —Michael Z. 17:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Related: Articles for deletion/Ye with grave. —Michael Z. 20:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Acute accent or Yat. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - note that in the previous AfD mentioned above, there was not just minimal discussion, there was nothing there other than the nom's statements. I'm not sure we can continue soft deleting related pages without input from other editors with experience in these topics (which isn't me, to be clear). JMWt (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ETA: this one which soft deleted 9 pages Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) JMWt (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is “soft deletion”? This proposal is for deletion.
 * There was nothing wrong with the previous deletion, but please let me know if you actually find a real problem. The proposed deletion was posted at the top of all of the articles. It was posted in article alerts for three WikiProjects. It was posted in appropriate deletion logs. An article creator was notified. —Michael Z. 21:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Michael, look at WP:SOFTDELETE. It's used in situations where there has been low participation in a discussion and no Keep votes. The article is treated as if it is a Proposed deletion and can be restored upon request at WP:REFUND. See Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) for an example of where Soft Deletion was used. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. JMWt seemed to be arguing against soft deletion due to low participation, so I don’t understand their intent. —Michael Z. 05:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You previously stated "See the previous deletion discussion regarding nine articles at.."
 * I was simply stating that there is nothing to see when nobody else contributed to the discussion.
 * As I said, it is very hard for me to make a comment on this AfD and it seems almost nobody else can either. In which case soft deletion seems like a mistake to me. I think we need more input for even soft delete beyond a single editor making statements that the rest of us are unable to parse. JMWt (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Or what you refuse to see is that editors view this as an uncontroversial deletion of material that’s all already in other articles where it belongs. Your argument is “I don’t understand this but I am suspicious of you.” If you can’t assume good faith then go ahead and find additional knowledgeable editors to comment before this discussion closes, or do some research and find some sources, but casting your unfounded doubts here is not helpful. —Michael Z. 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And the whole point of soft deletion seems to be this situation which you say it’s not acceptable for. If you don’t like the guidelines, then go change them instead of trying to bypass them in this discussion. I am not doing anything wrong, and your line is potentially disruptive. —Michael Z. 15:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to yat - Is there a problem with a redirect here? Also, is the problem you describe something effecting Yat with diaeresis as well? Suriname0 (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Re: yat with diaeresis, from the image it is clear that the diaeresis was used as a substitute where the grave accent wouldn’t fit over the tall letter when setting metal type, in that one dictionary. Was that a convention, no idea, since that article is un-referenced. I would propose deleting it too. —Michael Z. 03:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to yat, considering it is a variation of the letter. If other articles are added here, I also consider redirecting those to their respective pages. Persent101 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.