Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceqli (second nomination)

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 was delete, without prejudice towards future concrete demonstrations of notability. If this information is truly encyclopedia, then perhaps an alternative method would be adding said information into the Loglan article. —Kurykh 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceqli

Ceqli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article does not establish the notability of its subject through references to reliable third-party publications. The only sources provided are the self-published Geocities website of the language's creator, and a Yahoo! Groups mailing list. Article was deleted through AfD in 2004 and then undeleted later that year, and there was a second AfD in 2005, with a consensus to keep based on no third-party recognition of the language other than two ISO 639-3 codes, cql and tcj. Both codes now seem to have been removed (see [1]). Searches on EBSCO Host, Google Books, and Google Scholar yield no references to Ceqli in academic or print media other than a one-word trivial mention in a list of minor constructed languages in a 2005 Russian article. -- Schaefer (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable "language" / irrelevant Corpx 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In addition, I tried to see when the codes were deprecated, and it looks like before 2006, since they aren't listed in the recent change history of the standard. Unfortunately, it seems to verify from the ISO 693-3 website when (or if) these codes were in fact assigned to Ceqli. - Aagtbdfoua 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been discussed and re-discussed. It was deleted, and undeleted, and I do not understand the reason that people keep questioning its notability. It is a language that is regularly the subject of discussions on Usenet, not just by its creator (see [2] for some examples). It is on the LINGUIST list (see [3]), if that might be considered a "third-party recognition of the language" ---BRG 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps I should point out that an ISO 639-3 code is by no means a requirement for an artificial language to be included here. All that seems to be consensus about is that an ISO code in itself would be a sufficient argument for inclusion. That said, Ceqli is - and has been for quite a long time - a very well-known language both in conlang circles and outside. It is also one of the very few engeneered languages we know, probably the best-known after Lojban. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 07:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (and yes, how often are we going to have the same discussion over and over again, until finally people don't notice it anymore and the articles gets deleted by three "votes"?)

Nobody claimed having an ISO 639-3 is a requirement for notability (though I do believe the removal of its code provides some evidence of non-notability). I mentioned it because, between both previous AfDs, the ISO code was the only reliable third-party reference to the language presented, and it seems to no longer exist. The two sources in the article are the author's website and a Yahoo discussion group, both of which are unacceptable per WP:SPS policy. You say that Ceqli is "a very well-known language both in conlang circles and outside." Can you provide some evidence for the "outside" part of this claim? Because I see no evidence that Ceqli is used (or even known) anywhere outside of online conlang discussion groups. -- Schaefer (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The Linguist List database entry cited (by BRG) above appears to have been generated based on the existence of the ISO 639-3 code. To quote from the website:

  "The language codes used by LINGUIST are those of the ISO 639-3 code-set, which is built upon a unification of the Ethnologue system, produced and maintained by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, and the LINGUIST set of codes for ancient languages. This system assigns a 3-letter code to every distinct natural language known. LINGUIST has supplemented this system with appropriate subgrouping information. Most of the codes you will see, then, are Ethnologue codes, and did not originate with LINGUIST, nor are they controlled by it..."[4]

  To answer some of the questions raised above, I think the concern is that the article doesn't meet the first paragraph in the verifiability policy in that it's not possible to check that the material in this article has already been published in a reliable source. (Usenet groups and the "official website" of the language aren't considered reliable sources.) I'd like to see advocates of keeping this article either provide reliable sources or argue why my interpretation of policy is incorrect. Obviously, I can't make anyone do this, but the closing admin is (supposedly) only going to consider arguments with bases in wikipedia policies rather than counting "votes". - Aagtbdfoua 11:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, we lost Folkspraak recently (see the number of other languages this still exists on at nl:Folkspraak). I am surprised that these constructed languages dont appear in web/scholar/book/news searches, and as a result are considered not notable. It is a bit sad that Category:Gibberish language has more entries than Category:Analytic languages. John Vandenberg 12:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. High name recognition, codes, a dead-tree mention and to top it all off, I first added it to the list of languages in 2004 despite not being involved with the creation of this language or even a part of the Ceqli "circle". That an outsider like me would think it notable enough to be one of the few conlangs added to Wikipedia's list says something about its recognition. Wiwaxia 04:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources (usenet and the LINGUIST list don't qualify as reliable sources, and the Russian article has only trivial coverage). Many of the keep "votes" appear to be variations on WP:ILIKEIT. If Category:Gibberish language is overpopulated with non-notable languages, feel free to bring them up for deletion. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of this language despite not being part of any of its groups, and its appearance in Roswell is awesome! Macarenaman 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any reliable sources proving notability here. Whispering 11:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been improved since 2005, as notability has been established through referencing its use in a science fiction graphic novel by two notable science fiction authors. Bennett Chronister 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, before this your last edit was in November of 2004! Thanks for coming back for this AfD, but can you explain how this language's appearance in a non-notable webcomic establishes that we should have an article on Ceqli? (For that matter, can you confirm that Roswell, Texas is using Ceqli? That's not apparent from a casual look at the comic.) --Akhilleus (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This leads to the question: Is every book published by a notable author notable? Since Strauss and Howe are notable, is Wikipedia allowed to have an article on The Fourth Turning, 13th Gen and Millennials Rising, and even Millennials Go to College and Millennials and the Pop Culture? (I say yes.) By extension, since Tolkien is a notable conlanger, is Wikipedia allowed to have articles on all his conlangs, even Nevbosh? Wiwaxia 04:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question, is Rex F. May notable? Can we create an article on him, and merge this into that article ? John Vandenberg 04:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Uaxuctum said, "Haven't you ever heard of famous cartoonist 'Baloo', whose comic strips have been praised and published around the world?" in the first debate. I hadn't heard of Baloo, but I didn't argue with Uaxuctum because I had heard oe Ceqli, even though some people hadn't. An article could be hosted at either Rex F. May or Baloo (cartoonist), on the basis of his strips. Wiwaxia 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The searches that didn't produce many hits were of databases that rarely yield results on auxiliary and constructed languages. Although the code 696-3 was removed, this was under the misconception that Ceqli doesn't have a speaking population, judging from this post. Could we be losing languages basically because they are constructed languages? Matt 13:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What academic databases do yield results on auxiliary and constructed languages? The notability of Ceqli is not judged in comparison to other conlangs that might now have articles (WP:WAX), so a lack of academic discussion of conlangs in general doesn't lower the bar for Ceqli. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

According to (WP:NOTE), the search should be one that might demonstrate notability, as I said below in my response to Aagtbdfoua. Matt 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like you're saying "your search didn't demonstrate notability, so you must have performed the wrong search." Hope I'm misunderstanding you. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It just seems to me that people want to set up a higher standard for notability for constructed languages than for a lot of other things. For example, is an individual episode of a TV series ever really notable? Yet we have articles like Casa Bonita (South Park episode) and Two Bad Neighbors (a Simpsons episode). We have articles like Mew (Pokémon) -- is every Pokémon character really notable enough for an article? We have articles like USS Iowa (BB-61), and I really don't think we need an article on every ship in the whole U. S. Navy, but it looks as if we do. Now I'm not nominating these for deletion, because, frankly, this would be inconsistent with my philosophy about Wikipedia, which is that if someone thinks a subject is important enough to merit a Wikipedia article and writes the article, it ought to be included. But it seems to me that Ceqli is at least as notable as random episodes of TV series, random Pokémon characters, random ships in the Navy, and the like. -- BRG 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you want to nominate random episodes of TV series/Pokemon characters for deletion, go right ahead--I'd probably support you on a fair number of them. On the other hand, if you want to demonstrate that Ceqli is notable, please provide evidence of that by citing non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have said above, I do not intend to nominate anything for deletion; it contradicts my thoughts about what Wikipedia is, as I have just stated. And in addition, as I've found out in reference to Mew and the USS Iowa, when I try to go into an area in which I have no expertise to decide which articles might be obscure enough to be deleted for non-notability, I can't pick the right ones! I merely wanted to give examples of random Pokémon characters, ships in the Navy, and TV episodes, and in two of the three categories, I obviously selected the wrong examples! -- BRG 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, see WP:POKEMON. Mew, which you seem to imply is less notable than Ceqli, appears in a series of video games that has sold over 155 million units, as well as the franchise's associated TV show, which is one of the longest-running animated TV shows ever, and at least four feature-length movies. Note also Mew's article cites five published books and an article in an independent, widely circulated gaming magazine. If Ceqli could claim even a fifth that level of recognition, I would never have dreamed of putting its article on AfD. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what BRG is saying is that people are setting one standard for most material and a different, higher standard for constructed languages, and I agree. The passage cited by Akhilleus isn't really about that issue. In fact, it acknowledges that Wikipedia has a systematic bias. I think we're seeing the same bias here. Look at the vehemence with which this small article is being opposed. At its heart, this looks like a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not a notability or RS issue. Matt 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that we need some non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources to show that this language is notable. In the absence of those sources, the only argument for keeping this article seems to be some variation of WP:ILIKEIT. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone resorting to the ILIKEIT argument here. Both sides are being good at sticking to the issue of notability, which is a Wikipedia policy. Rather, I see "I've heard of it" arguments. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conlangs/Straw_poll#Reputation, someone suggested name recognition as what makes a conlang notable. Most were supportive (even some of our conlangophobes like Average Earthman), with Haikupoet saying, "I would think this the single most important criterion when dealing with conlangs." 67.169.38.224 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguing that conlangs should have a lower requirement for notability than other subjects is a version of WP:ILIKEIT. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my first time posting to Wikipedia, but after observing all these conlang AfD's, I have something to say. When someone makes a website for a conlang she or he invented, other people in the conlang community won't bother making a second website about the language. Even for languages that are well-known throughout the conlang community and talked about on forums and Usenet like Ceqli, people don't make independent websites that meet the scrutiny of Wikipedians who clamor for "independent sources". The only sites like that that I can think of are the Verdurian embassies on several conworld sites. There are no peer review journals for conlangs. Much as people in Papua New Guinea don't publish books or magazines about things that are well-known to them and their culture and therefore have a harder time than people in other countries at getting included. As a result, there is a kind of systematic bias against conlangs. And also, let's face it. NOBODY writes their articles on conlang grammar or novel plots from independent sources on Wikipedia. Is the information on the phonology and grammar of Quenya and Sindarin written from a linguist peer-reviweing Tolkien's work, or straight from the appendices of Tolkien's books? Does the grammar of Klingon in Wikipedia come from journal articles ABOUT Klingon, or from Okrand's book itself? Did the summaries of the Harry Potter books come from newspaper articles about Harry Potter, or did the Wikipedians who wrote them read Harry Potter and summarize the plot from memory? Zanzibar Buck-Buck McPhate 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) — Zanzibar Buck-Buck McPhate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

In my opinion, your comment confuses the issues of notability and sourcing. Quenya and Sindarin are probably notable because there's a strong array of secondary sources about Tolkien's work, much of which discusses Q and S. Since the languages are notable, Tolkien's work is an acceptable source to use in writing the article. Sadly, Klingon is notable because of broad coverage in a range of media, including major news media. Therefore Okrand's work, which I suppose is a primary source, can be used as a source for its article. The notability of the Harry Potter series is again trivially easy to establish.

On the other hand, everyone concedes that conlangs are not going to get much coverage in independent, reliable sources--in other words, they do not meet our normal standards for notability. I see no reason to deviate from normal practice.

By the way, because Papua New Guinea has been a popular destination for western anthropologists doing fieldwork, I think you'd be surprised by how much material you can find about "things that are well-known to them". Try kula ring, for example. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, if everyone were to concede such bias were real, what does it have to do with the issue at hand? Lax enforcement of notability guidelines in other articles does not establish the notability of Ceqli. I happen to think Wikipedia has a systemic bias against coverage of women's issues, but that doesn't make notable every feminist theory with no references in reliable publications, even if its supporters create a discussion group on Yahoo. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think bias is a relevant issue if it is so strong that it actually leads to several articles being nominated for deletion. The points about lax enforcement and every feminist theory being notable are basically straw men - or straw women, not to be sexist - since I haven't suggested that enforcement is lax or that large numbers of engineered languages are notable. Matt 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the notability of the USS Iowa (BB-61) is extremely easy to establish through coverage in reliable sources; just do a google search. Note also that it was the first of a class of battleships, carried President Roosevelt to the meeting at Casablanca, and played an important role in naval combat in the Pacific theater during 1944-1945. Hardly a "random ship". --Akhilleus (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mew is a strange choice for a claim of a Pokémon being "non-notable". Back when there were officially only "150 Pokémon", kids were talking all about the secret 151st Pokémon that you had to do something special with your game to get. This was when the game only held 151 Pokémon. Looking through the list of Pokémon on Wikipedia, I think Bronzong may qualify as an example of a non-notable Pokémon. (Even though I still support articles on all Pokémon.) Wiwaxia 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I have little knowledge of Pokemon characters, If Mew is a strange choice, replace it with any other. I just selected one at random. -- BRG 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Once an ISO language, always an ISO language. 67.169.38.224 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not according to this. Do you have another source that says Ceqli is currently part of ISO 639? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what 67.169.whatever is saying is that having ever had a code on ISO-639 confers notability on a language, even if the language doesn't have the code now. Wiwaxia 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think Ceqli was only in the draft, and never in the published version of the standard. ISO_639-3 was published on Feb-05-2007 according to WP (it's included in the list of standards published in this month according to an official ISO document, although the document doesn't give the exact date. [5] The email indicated by Matt above suggests it was purged from the version before this, around the end of 2006 [6]. It's not an active ISO 639-3 code, and it's not in the list of code retirements since at least 2/1/2007 here. I really can't figure out what's going on, because if Matt's email is right, and it was removed from the draft around the end of 2006, it should at least be in the change index here. In any case, I think the evidence strongly suggests this was never in the final version of the standard. And frankly, even if it were, there still are no reliable sources on which to base an article. - Aagtbdfoua 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the official document you've cited, the third part of the ISO 639 code (639-3) was published in February 2007. Ceqli was included and later removed from a previous version, not from that one. As a result, the document provides no evidence that Ceqli was included only in the draft stages. We know that it was once in draft form, but all ISO codes were. An omission from the lists could simply have been accidental. As far as there being no reliable sources, WP:NOTE says that the search should be one that might demonstrate notability. This could only be done if sources that might reasonably yield results for the subject were searched. I'm not tremendously knowledgeable about engineered languages or constructed languages, although I do know something about other, non-constructed auxiliary languages. Maybe someone who is closer to the field could suggest some relevant databases. In any case, this type of search wasn't conducted, so we really don't know if there are reliable sources or not. Matt 02:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not really a strong argument--essentially you're saying the wrong databases were searched, but you have no idea what the right databases would be. If Ceqli doesn't show up in news or scholarly sources, the usual way we establish notability, on what basis would you argue that Ceqli is notable? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by suggesting that Ceqli was in a previous version of ISO 639? Are you suggesting Ceqli was in ISO_639-2? This doesn't appear to be the case. Searching current version. [7] Change History [8]. The evidence that indicates that Ceqli was never in a final version of ISO 639-3: (1) it isn't in the current version of ISO 639-3; (2) the standard wasn't finalized until Feb/5/2007; (3) it isn't in the list of retirements here [9] which includes a retirement from Feb/1/2007. Aagtbdfoua 07:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non notable origional research--Sefringle^Talk 06:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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.