Let me add my two cents: I am a type designer who works in multilingual fonts and, as such, I have to sometimes test and use, for demonstration purposes, foreign pangrams. I have used quite a few of these and, nonsense as they may be, they are actually items of culture. From the niche culture of typographers and type designers, but culture no less. If other niches are allowed airtime on Wikipedia, why shouldn't typography? There are thousands of type designers, after all, and the printing press has more than 500 years of history already and changed Humanity in a big way…

Oh, and by the way, pangrams are actually very hard to write, especially the “purest” ones (those without repetition) or the most complete ones (those with diacritic marks)… As hard as a haiku or a poem, as you have to think quite a bit and probably even do some research on dictionaries or, ironically enough, on Wikipedia/Wiktionary themselves. I should know that, since I've wrote a few ones myself to demonstrate special OpenType features, like common and discretionary ligatures (like, say, “Afflicted suffragists affix fiery flags”… Does that sound too nonsense for you? Well, I can tell you that I've been using that one internally in FontLab Studio and Glyphs.app, and externally on typo-posters for years, and my colleagues could probably stand to benefit from it, too).

It's square type decisions like this outright deletion, without adding the content to Wikimedia (as was suggested, and which would impact your servers minimally, seeing it's only plain text) that sometimes makes Wikipedia policy rub a bit against its users (see for yourselves: http://clagnut.com/blog/2380/ This blogger is ironizing your decision and, with no offense, I must say that I agree with him). On this particular case, it seems as though the reviewers had some prejudice against right-brain articles, without really putting their left-brain at work; so, I hereby suggest doing some research into pangrams themselves in order to ascertain which may have some historical or functional value (the latter could be grouped by functional category, instead of just language). That would actually make the page academically and professionally interesting, valuable and probably more justifiable even by the most stringent standards, and more than just a [admittedly useful but probably too loose] “bunch of nonsense phrases”.

Unfortunately, I am personally not available for doing that research right now, even though (or maybe because) I am doing an MA in Typography. But if I ever come across relevant material, I may add them to a revived page, or to the main pangram page.

93.108.48.95 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. cc @Beeblebrox: —Born2bgratis (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely, came here from said article. Pangrams currently only contains English pangrams, and I think those of different languages are at least important enough to merit a merge. Knowing how letters appear in words is important to typographers (I'm typesetting a comic with characters not in the standard English alphabet) and this kind of information is useful.―Novelyst (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to revive this page on e.g. Wikisources or Wikibooks. It's a very useful resource that has been one of my most useful pages of Wikipedia, and I am very sad to see it has been deleted. I do understand the reasoning, but this is the kind of information sheet that an encyclopedia would have in the thematic section for ease of use. Any working pangrams will do, but for many cases having a list of these is helpful the least and in some cases crucial. --85.149.33.108 (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]