Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tceqli (4th 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

=[[:Tceqli]]=

AfDs for this article:

:{{la|Tceqli}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tceqli_(4th_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Tceqli}})

Tceqli (formerly Ceqli) is an artificial language which lacks notability. There are no citations on the page except to websites maintained by the language's creator. Google searches for "Tceqli" and "Ceqli" does not turn up any coverage except for a handful of personal websites and Wikipedia mirrors. A previous AfD nomination also linked to its appearance in a list of conlangs in a magazine article: [https://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/1128/ link (Russian)]. There were claims that the language has an ISO 639-3 code, but that does not appear to be the case. Besides the ISO claim previous arguments against deletion were mostly based on WP:WAX and WP:IKNOWIT. Delete per WP:NN.

Edit: the language's creator has changed its name since the previous AfD discussions. They can be found here: 2004, 2005, 2007. Hermione is a dude (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hermione is a dude (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: To get more opinions and a more solid consensus, given that this is the 4th nomination.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete The argument often presented in previous AfDs is that it is popular on Usenet as a conlang, but does not pass our notability standards as all references to it are WP:SPS. menaechmi (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete: simply fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. DrStrauss talk 10:38, 1 August 2017 (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.