Reconstruction talk:Latin/ovicla

RFD discussion: January–April 2019
Redundant to attested. See Category talk:Vulgar Latin. Per utramque cavernam 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Comment - If there are credible sources for it, it should be included; whether on a separate page or as listed variant(s). Lx 121 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What do sources have to do with it? That doesn't change the deletion rationale at all. —Rua (mew) 14:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ...IF there are credible sources for it, THEN the information should be included; whichever page you put it on. Lx 121 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not if there is consensus to delete them, obviously. —Rua (mew) 16:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleted —Rua (mew) 16:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

An undeletion discussion is needed to recreate an entry deleted by RFD. J3133 (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I hadn't even seen this discussion page. Alright then. Nicodene (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)