Ye with grave: The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting WP:GNG , but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter with Grave accent or Stress (linguistics) .  (They are not even articles about Unicode code points, because these accented letters can be represented either by a code point or using a combining accent, for example U+0400 Ѐ, or U+0415 U+0300 Ѐ.)  See Macedonian alphabet , Bulgarian alphabet , Serbian Cyrillic alphabet , Church Slavonic , and Early Cyrillic alphabet .  See also the previous successful RM of nine articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) , RM in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yat with acute .   — Michael Z .  17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Europe .   — Michael Z .  17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: I with grave (Cyrillic) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) O with grave (Cyrillic) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) U with grave (Cyrillic) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Hard sign with grave ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) — Michael Z .  17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Grave accent .  🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment' I with grave looks like it is close to being properly sourced, which makes me think everything but Hard sign with grave may also be able to be properly sourced.  I also don't know how to search for sources in say Bulgarian.  I think a merge with Grave accent is probably best at this time, but this could potentially be salvageable.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all , I think, without prejudice to possible mergers or reconfigurations.  Most are already cited to some degree, all are almost certainly citable, and it seems quite unlikely that any would actually fail the GNG.  Of course this is really a WP:NOT issue, so if not kept, soft redirect to Wiktionary (e.g. wikt:Ѐ ), which is much better equipped for providing such information as can be provided.  I don't see plausible merge targets at either grave accent or Cyrillic script .  I don't think bundled noms like this are very productive; I note that the nom refers to these as "RMs" but in fact the first tranche have already been soft-deleted without being merged anywhere, and without any input from anyone besides the nom.  That seems like a really unsatisfactory way of making content decisions.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I accidentally typed RM when I meant AFD.  There’s nothing else wrong with this.   As you can see it was an AFD, the procedure was followed, and notifications were posted widely.  Beyond likelihood or not, why don’t you demonstrate that any of them actually meet GNG.  That is the bar.   — Michael Z .  03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nom's not at fault because no one else ! voted in the deletion discussion, but it's also not a consensus to delete.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS .   — Michael Z .  22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's the same as "boldly" deleting something.  Anyone is welcome to challenge it.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right.  And no one has done so.  The main argument to keep is “I don’t know,” accompanied by pure speculation about possibly meeting GNG, without any attempt to demonstrate it does.  The previous deletions have not been reversed or appealed.  I’d be perfectly happy if someone did so with a valid rationale, but it has not materialized and I don’t think it exists.  This set is a bit different, because it concerns two different usage of the grave (as opposed to the acute), so I would be happy if it’s re-listed or gets wider input.  Anyway.   — Michael Z .  18:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to see if we can come to a consensus.  So far we have an implicit delete (nom), a redirect, and a keep.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect is fine with me.  But no problem with keeping this open either.   — Michael Z .  14:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say keep , seems useful and well documented enough to me in spite of it being a niche thing.  -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 15:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus