Should the `nl` and `no` languages be cleaned up?

[SayakMukhopadhyay]

I noticed that translations exist for both nl and no languages even though no is explicitly disabled and nl is not configured in hugo.toml. Moreover, i18n/no and i18n/nl both don't have an OWNERS file in them.

So, raising this issue to discuss this based on this convo.

[SayakMukhopadhyay]

/area localization

[Okabe-Junya]

/cc @a-mccarthy @seokho-son as l10n leads

[seokho-son]

Hi @SayakMukhopadhyay

It was agreed in the localization subproject meeting to remove the no localization added for testing purposes and the excluded localization code (nl) that has not been utilized for a long time in order to reduce management burden.
We agreed to get help from contributors who participated in the meeting at that time, but it has not been removed yet. @SayakMukhopadhyay, would you help with removing it? (Thanks @Okabe-Junya for pinging me!)

/triage accepted

[SayakMukhopadhyay]

@SayakMukhopadhyay](https://github.com/SayakMukhopadhyay), would you help with removing it? (Thanks @Okabe-Junya for pinging me!)

Of course, I will create a PR for this soon.

[seokho-son]

/assign @SayakMukhopadhyay

[Okabe-Junya]

/kind cleanup