Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/(s)kewH-

References

The page has been richly sourced. The request of deletion should be kept? — This unsigned comment was added by Alescianny (talk • contribs).

It wasn't when the request was made. Take it up at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)kewH-. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March 2021–June 2022

The following information passed a request 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.

---

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)kewH-

Ditto, but could be saved if someone wants to take it on. --{{victar|talk}} 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I came here to say I found the entry useful. The rationale seems dubious for a wiki: we improve, rather than delete. William Avery (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is what the entry looked like when Victar tagged it. I'm not sure that whatever reasoning for deeming it low quality still applies. E.g., there are now 13 references and a much more extensive list of reflexes and descendants. 70.172.194.25 15:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it is safe to remove the tag since no objections have been raised in the months after the sourcing has been added Parm-parm-parm (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone apparently created an account just to (try to) close this RFD, which is interesting behaviour. Anyway, RFD-kept This, that and the other (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Their account is a couple of months older than this rfd, though their actions regarding this entry are the only 2 of their 6 edits that are here on Wiktionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)