Ceqli language was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Created by the author (i.e. Rex F. May created the page and the conlang), seems out of the spirit of wikipedia. --202.147.117.39 03:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Sorry, that anon is me. for some reason i keep being logged out. --Kesuari 03:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC))

But other than that, I agree with your sentiment. I guess what matters the most is notoriety. --Ardonik 03:35, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
You're quite right, excellent points. I guess I was speaking more in terms of heuristics — a person writing about eir own pet project (conlang, micronation, programming language, whatever) is in my book a huge strike against, and points to that person not understanding Wikipedia's stated goals. An interesting counter-point to what you said about inviting the creators of large projects to write about them (if I may play the devil's advocate for a moment) is that this would lend a possibly erroneous air of legitimacy to those writings (after all, the creator of a project necessarily has a significant bias) and possibly encourage the "this is MY page" approach which we strive to avoid. Something to think about, at any rate. Jeeves 06:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If I had written the article, as one who had no proprietary interest in the language but just thought it of sufficient interest to write about, would you think differently? In fact, I asked Rex May to write it because I thought his article would be more accurate than anything I could write. If the only reason you want it deleted is because it was written by the author of the project, I would like you to reconsider. -- BRG 15:14, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
Good point. However, that an article about a project might be written by that project's creator is certainly not the only reason I would suggest deletion, but it's a big "vanity" warning sign to me. I have several interesting projects myself that I choose not to write WP article on out of respect for that principle and the "notoriety" clause. Like I said, it's kind of like a heuristic, along the lines of D = Vanity_Factor - Notoriety + VFD_Abuse, where D is some unitless quantity I use to help decide whether I vote to delete. Or something like that. Trying to reduce our subjective tendencies towards/away from deletion is indeed fraught with complexity. Jeeves 02:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
We have dozens of articles about every darn ship in the US Navy. (see the links to "Midway Island")Do we need all them? If we can have that sort of stuff, which is of no interest to me or to most people, I think that having articles on every conlang that has a site on the Web is hardly worse. And in an encyclopedia with 2000,000+ articles, a few on these things hardly qualifies as excess bulk. Come on! -- BRG 15:20, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
There is a big difference there - between one person's project, and a ship that many people served on, was involved in historical events, etc. I just did a project for psychology class - should that get an article too? Ambivalenthysteria 02:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've done some Wikification on Ceqli, also I did some comparisons, with other auxlangs, namely Glosa language and Folkspraak. In comparison Ceqli isn't much more obscure, even the (low) number of members of their discussion lists (all use Yahoogroups), are comparable. Pjacobi 17:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about VFDing them all then, if they're also conlangs? Ambivalenthysteria 02:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Be bold and integrate them all into an article Artifical Languages (minor), if you find the multiple small articles disgusting. Pjacobi 11:42, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Uh, R...the fact that you posted this vote less than an hour after posting your very first article makes you a bit suspect. - Lucky 6.9 06:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If new users aren't supposed to comment on votes for deletion, there should be something on one of the welcome pages saying so. Thanks for the warm welcome. Rob Speer
You certainly are welcome. It's rare that a new user would post a vote on this page, especially about such an esoteric subject. When it happens, especially so soon after a first post, it's suspicious because people have taken the so-called "sockpuppet" route before. If your intentions were honest, especially since you're familiar with the subject at hand, please feel free to jump in the fracus. I really was trying to be gentle and to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry if it didn't come across that way. - Lucky 6.9 08:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Lucky 6.9 et.al. I hope you agree with my clarifying of the thread structure. Do you have technical evidence of sockpuppets at work? If at all, I'd assume that this is a case of calling friends and family for help, which is not the same as the use of multiple user names from one person. Also, don't bite the newbies, please! Pjacobi 11:40, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I resent being described as one of "the author's friends" who are "so obsessed about keeping this." I am not a friend of Rex May; I am a person interested in auxlangs who feels strongly that the perfect auxlang can only be devised if we have knowledge of all the attempts that have been made and are able to evaluate their strong and weak points. People who know me on the auxlang and conlang list might recognize that if anything I am biased toward a Novial-like language, and that Ceqli is pretty far from my own auxlang preferences. But I do think it is necessary to know about all these creations, and it is in this spirit that I have spoken out for this article's inclusion. -- BRG 14:38, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
The 5 days are up. There is NOT enough consensus to delete. And most of the people who voted to delete did so based on a false perception (namely, that Rex May posted it as a vanity effort; he did not, as I urged him to post it, and if I'd posted the article myself, most of what people have said against the article would be inapplicable.) So, SimonP, the article should stay according to the Wikipedia rules as I understand them. -- BRG 14:31, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.