Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Belarusian Wikibooks (2)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.


The proposal is rejected and the project will be kept open.

  • Explanation by the closing Langcom member: No consensus. --Millosh (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Belarusian Wikibooks is an inactive project with just 4 active users in the past month. Of these 4 users 3 had just 1 edit and the other had 2 edits. The number of total pages is 590 and just 4 images are uploaded. --Doostdar (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

# Not closure wikis. --Mtherwjs (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Sockpuppet of banned vandal. --Jarash (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. Have you notified this project (and probably the Wikipedia in this language)? Maybe Wikimedia Belarus too? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is another project. If Wikpedia is active in one language it doesn't mean that the language would have an active Wikibooks project, too. For example Swedish Wikipedia has more than 2 milion articles and ranks 2 among Wikipedias. While you look at Swedish Wikiquote you see that it ranks 35 with only 543 useful pages. So, you can not deduct that activity of Wikipedia equals with activity in other Wikimedia projects. By the way, Belarusian Wikipedia has only 114,000 articles and is not considerably active. --Doostdar (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    Belarus Wikipedia looks pretty active to me though. Besides, most of the 2 million articles on sv.wp are bot-created stubs. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Arbnos (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. It is absolutely not obvious initiative--Dmartyn80 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. According to closing policy, type 1, there must be no significant articles at all. There is no such reason as inactive. As you can see there are many articles and no any evidence that they all are insignificant. For example there is a book about Esperanto language. This request must be removed or changed for type 2 with appropriate reason added. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Belarusian language is in complicated situation now, because Belarusian authorities associate it with opposition forces and do not support the language at all. Wikimedia projects can support the language, but it is necessary that they have ceased to nominate to close for no valid reason. --Rave (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Any language can have wikis (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, et caetera) in it, if at least minimal content is presented and some small activity is. And Wikibooks in the Byelorussian language are not completely empty and inactive. Yes, the content and activities are not very big, but it is the problem of most languages with not very many speakers. Gamliel Fishkin 13:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    How many languages have a Wikivoyage project? Just 17. But how many languages have a Wikibooks project? 121. Are all these 121 Wikibooks projects active? No. In the past 30 days Belarusian Wikibooks has had just 7 active users 5 of them had just 1 edit. Can we consider Belarusian Wikibooks as an active project? --Doostdar (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. "Belarusian Wikibooks is an inactive project with just 4 active users in the past month" So what? That does not mean it needs to be deleted! --QuotidianPaperclip (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, if you see that it happens every month. --Doostdar (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    For your awareness I should say that deletion is different from closure. By closure the project will be transferred to Incubator. --Doostdar (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Belarusian Wikibooks recent changes --Doostdar (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose. I will join the project. --Jarash (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    More than two weeks have passed and you haven't had even one edit in that wiki. Talk rationally! --Doostdar (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    I'm writing a book on physics at the moment and don't want to publish it as a draft. Happy now? --Jarash (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe you want to publish your work by a real publication. In that case you won't need to Belarusian Wikibooks! --Doostdar (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    I think that I will die before it will be possible to make a real publication of a book in Belarusian in Belarus. --Jarash (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. This is premature initiative. Belarusian Wikipedia is developing dynamically. No need to worry about the development of the Wikibooks project. His turn will come. —Yaraslau Zubrytski (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  10. In the case of the closure of the Belarusian Wikibooks, you next will be Persian. It is not so actively developed, such as English, and I think 10 million lazy Belarusians subscribe to my words here.--Raviaka Ruslan (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    No,that's not a good comparison. Persian Wikibooks is highly developed but Belarusian Wikibooks is not developed and may not develop. Belarusian is ranked77 in this list. --Doostdar (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Пішу ў беларускіх ВікіКнігах. Vit Koz (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Although bewikibooks has little content and very low activity, the last weeks an user created a bunch of microstubs of books, based on that of enwikibooks. It would be better look for new people from bewikipedia, interested in create a new and fresh community and help grow the project. Please help that lonely user by giving him/her a hand, and don't deprive the project from growing. --Zerabat (discusión) 00:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia community is a different thing. Belarusian Wikibooks is now completely inactive. --Doostdar (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)