Reconstruction talk:Latin/amo

Deletion debate
--Barytonesis (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tea_room/2017/February
 * Requests_for_deletion/Others

RFD discussion: October 2017–April 2018
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)
 * 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. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February 2017–May 2018
I may have missed this, but since when were we adding Vulgar Latin entries for attested Latin terms? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe see also Tea room/2017/February. -Slœtel (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It seems that there is indeed no reason to keep this entry. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:37, 27 February 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)