According to s:ang:Special:Statistics, There are 11 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about Wicifruma, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 0 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.
This is the full list of articles on Main namespace:
Support en.ws has always agreed to host OE works for history of the English language purposes. Without anyone actively using it, I can only see it becoming a vandal wiki.—Zhaladshar(Talk) 19:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Redirect to en.wikisource.org. —Theo(Talk) 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support When there is no real development there, English Wikisource can have the texts. Likewise, even though Classic Chinese Wikipedia is now open, Chinese Wikisource users have no strong desire to break Classic Chinese texts away into a separare subdomain.--Jusjih 14:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (admin of English and Chinese Wikisource)
Support, per above. No need for project. Back to Incubator, maybe. Thunderhead 03:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. Totally redundant with other projects, and a spam trap waiting to happen. Grandmasterka 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. The whole Old English Wikipedia is inactive, so why should it have a Wikisource? I just see no reason for this. --Roosa(Talk) 21:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Dead languages don't need 'pedias unless there is an active hobby community trying to use them (for fun, for pedagogical reasons, etc)... but you can make the argument for a 'source repository more easily. However if all the texts on this 'source are already on the english wikisource, what's the need? This is a dead language with a successor. Support ++Lar: t/c 23:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. --Tone 17:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, one en.wikisource for en/ang/simple-eng --✉Hello World! 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Wikisource, more so than Wikipedia, is the kind of project best suited for an ancient languages. Let's dump a lot of Old English texts there, they're after all PD and a vital source for the corresponding Wikipedia's vocabulary. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 13:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
All texts in the current ang.wikisource are avaiable and accepted on en.wikisource. This isn't a delete all texts in Old English from all Wikisources, this is just a close the ang.wikisource, one of the most inactive Wikisources. Sorry, I don't understand your comment. 555 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that case closing the Old English Wikisource is a serious option. But so is moving all Old English texts to ang.wikisource! It would only be consistent to keep source texts in language X in the wikisource project of the corresponding, if such a project exists. French with French, German with German, Anglo-Saxon with Anglo-Saxon. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 10:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Should I request to create three or four new Czech Wikisources? There is the modern Czech language, but we have also that one of the 18. century, the mediaeval one and than something like old church slavonic based one... and the the regions...:-) I think, Anglo-Saxon in the en.source can be held together with an special system of categories. In the en.source, at least, there will be plenty of people who take care, in the being ang.source the vandals only will do it. -jkb- 11:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose English and Anglo-Saxon Old English are related, but they are no longer the same. Old English is a "pure" Germanic language (I honestly feel uncomfortable using the words pure and Germanic in the same sentence, but it seems the best way to describe the language), with a literary tradition all its own. English is a development of amalgamating Anglo-Saxon with Norman French with rather heavy borrowing from Latin. It would seem foolish two have one wikisource that has text in two distinguishable languages. A person fluent in Modern English may be able to "fight his way" through Chaucer, but without learning the vocabulary and grammar for Anglo-Saxon, could never get through the first line of Beowulf. You run the risk of confusing non-English-speaking visitors to the English wikisource if they try to read the Old English texts. Besides if all these people who support deleting the wiki could take the time to do so, why couldn't they have spent their time posting items for the Old English wikisource? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) --Johannes Rohr 12:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC).