ScottL wrote:
Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have an acceptable abbreviation? Or are you maintaining that it is not actually a language?
If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a new wikipedia to be formed.
The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should not. Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable. Several constructed languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in those should be higher. For languages without a code there is still a large swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets our other criteria.
Ec