Jump to content

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Afar Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following discussion is closed: Closed. Inactive, no content — VasilievVV 21:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to close this discussion in seven days from now, on May 11VasilievVV 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Afar Wikipedia is nearly empty, only visited by spambots. The three articles are bible verses posted by a user who does not speak Afar, thus apparently not a single Afar speaker ever edited there. Ahoerstemeier 08:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support (12)

  1. Support closure, no content whatsoever. Majorly (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support closure. No content. Quite a bit of spambot activity and vandalism, and no community to clean it up. --Jorunn 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support closure: 3 old articles (w:aa:Special:Allpages) and no useful activity besides de-spamming (w:aa:Special:Recentchanges). --A. B. (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Node ue 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support for the same reason as all the others, no activity, no content. ST47 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support closing. No recent activity indicates noone is interested...--Tone 07:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Does not appear to be a viable project. Move content to Incubator, delete all pages and close database for editing. Siebrand 13:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, normally I would oppose closures of Wikipedias, but this one... 3 articles. 0 activity. = closure. --OosWesThoesBes 08:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, no active community and no content. Spam target. Multichill 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - per nom :) ...--Cometstyles 13:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --junafani 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Status quo hasn't changed much, there are still 3 content pages and little editing activity. Remember guys, this can be moved to Incubator and be revived at anytime. Sr13 09:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (4)

  1. Oppose Give it a chance. I remember the same question for SiSwati wikipedia (only 2 articles). Now it has got 77.
  2. Oppose Give a chance. --Chabi 10:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Don't you think that it's better not to close but to move it to Incubator??? --Russkij 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Give it a chance... --Node ue 00:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

  • Undecided - If "closing" this edition means that it will be put in "incubator" status and actively promoted (or that a group or individuals is actively sought to promote it) then I support; if not I oppose. I just learned of a group that was "documenting the language of Afar ... as a precursor to localizing their IT," but am willing to bet that they are not attuned to the great resource that Wikipedia could be for their efforts. It is wonderful that WMF is promoting Wikipedia Academies for some countries and languages in Africa, but it wouldn't make sense at the same time to leave less active African language Wikipedias to sink or swim on their own. --A12n 17:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All pages written in Afar would be imported to Incubator and then the Afar Wikipedia would be locked, so editing will be impossible. If some people are interested to contribute to an Afar Wikipedia, they can edit the pages on Incubator (and create new ones) and make a request to re-open aa.wikipedia.org --MF-W 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]