Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceqli

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 of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ceqli

I know this page has been previously nominated, deleted, undeleted etc., but a good amount of time has passed this is a nn made up (in 1996) nonsense language and is inappropriate for Wikipedia in my OP. I bet I'll lose this one, but I know there is at least some belief out there that this should be deleted even though some work has been put into it and even though it has been around for some time (with rare editing) Gator (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I don't really like conlangs, but I do a fair amount of work on languages on Wikipedia. This one has two ISO 639-3 codes, which indicates that it has a degree of recognition (even though those codes are in draft form, and it's likely to lose one of them). Ceqli is a fairly important engineered language, and enginerred languages are useful scientific tools for the study of language and logic. It is not a nonsense language. Indeed, I think you would be hard pressed to define such a phenomenon. --Gareth Hughes 20:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can someone provide links for the original delete/undelete discussions so we're not just repeating the same arguments? Peyna 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable under ISO recognition and formidable article. --Bchociej 21:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — the article has improved much since, but here is the old debate:
  votes for deletion/Ceqli language. --Gareth Hughes 21:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I too dislike conlangs and their prominence on Wikipedia, but it's a legitimate example of the type.
  rodii 23:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. What a nonsense! If you don't like conlangs, then just don't pay attention to them. Personally, I don't like pop music, but as for now that has never been a reason for me to have any of it deleted here. Anyway, definitely a notable language, and the reasons for including it are too many even to mention it here. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, mention a couple. :) DenisMoskowitz 18:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ceqli is a serious experiment with the structure of language, not a "made-up nonsense language". --PeteBleackley 12:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ceqli is well-known and long-standing in the conlanging community. As a response to Lojban emphasizing a world-spanning vocabulary, it's notable as more than "just another conlang". DenisMoskowitz 18:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Izehar 23:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 81.15.146.91 23:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. If it's recognized by ISO, and we already have a decent article about it, I don't see any reason for deletion. narkisto 10:20, 5 December 2005 (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.