Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Dutch Wikinews

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The result of the following proposal for closing a WMF project is to CLOSE the project. Please, do not modify this page.

I propose to close the Dutch.Wikinews. There are barely items added. Since June 10 only 1 item has been added. I propose to close this project and move it back into the incubator. Koektrommel 19:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closure wikinews NL has been announced on wikinews NL.

The MediaWiki:Sitenotice page in nl.wikinews does not seem to be working. -- 11:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This could be true for anon's: I just updated n:nl:MediaWiki:Anonnotice. HenkvD 08:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I never tried to change anything in the sitenotice. I was just trying to state that Oscar's edition above did not seem to be showing the message over the site (I checked it only in the main page and new previewed pages). The message of your edition seemingly shows everywhere except the main page. Thanks, HenkvD. Regards. -- 21:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Koektrommel 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC) as nominated[reply]
  2. Huib talk 19:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Import to Incubator please so it can recover and get his own name again when its strong enough.[reply]
  3. CrazyPhunk 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC) No activity[reply]
  4. Taketa 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC), No activity[reply]
  5. Michiel1972 20:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Insufficient activity, this project is not functioning as it should after so many years.[reply]
  6. Jeroen 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) - unfortunately I have to support this. There is a very low activity and the activity is not increasing, but decreasing as it seems. Even the death of Michael Jackson was not reported. Please import into the Incubator.[reply]
  7. Wikibelgiaan 22:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC) - It's a pity, but without activity it's useless outside Incubator...[reply]
  8. Magalhães 05:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC), no activity[reply]
  9. JacobH 07:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Full support for closing down this not-functioning wikinews version.[reply]
  10. Especially Wikinews project should be up to date. This is important for these Wikimedia Projects. There is no activity. Barras 08:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Forkboy 08:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC). There is no news reported, this will not help but rather hinder the project.[reply]
  12. Balko 08:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC) - Geen activiteit, zie [2][reply]
    translation: No activity - Huib talk 04:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  13. Brinkie 10:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC) No activity[reply]
  14. A ansems 10:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC), No activity[reply]
  15. '''Luctor''' 11:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC) It was a nice idea, but without active contributors there's no point in maintaining the project any longer.[reply]
  16. Woudloper 11:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately no activity. Should be closed, but that doesn't mean news info can now be added to wikipedia-nl without complying with policies for inclusion there.[reply]
  17. Capaccio | talk! 11:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Theo 12:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) there is too little activity, a minimum of three newsitems per day would make it an attractive site. If Incubator is what I think it is, please save the current content there for future use.[reply]
  19. Druifkes 12:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC) no activity[reply]
  20. Ziyalistix 13:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC) no activity[reply]
  21. Cumulus 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC). No activity at all, or like we say in dutch, "het loopt voor geen meter".[reply]
  22. Davin 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Quistnix 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC) a news site without any activity is dead. No more, no less.[reply]
  24. Advance 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC) too few volunteers[reply]
  25. Husky 19:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC) -- Jammer maar helaas. Misschien over een tijdje weer proberen als de community wat groter is.[reply]
    translation: To bad, let's try again when there is a bigger community Huib talk 04:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  26. oscar 22:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC) after 5 years still not enough people willing to work on this in the long run writing new content on a regular basis, so better lock it for now.[reply]
  27. Simeon 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC) No activity[reply]
    Romaine 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC) - See neutral[reply]
  28. Akoopal 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Although there seems to be enough intrest to write news, the writers don't find it intresting to write on wikinews. After trying for a long enough time we have to agree this project is not viable.[reply]
  29. Nakon 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC), appears to be mostly inactive as only three articles were created in the past 30 days. Nakon 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Juliancolton | Talk 06:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Silver Spoon 10:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - No activity at all[reply]
  32. MMaerkk 12:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - One of the bureaucrats has blocked me without a significant reason, because of abuses over there the Dutch WikiNews hasn't a future. Futher, but maybe more important and isn't POV: I can't help WikiNews anymore, and I can't add newsarticles (my intention was to do that). Little people could 'save' WikiNews, and one of them can't contribute anymore. MMaerkk 12:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use valid reasons to support the closure, I don't think possible abuse of a bureacrat is a good reason to close a project, and abuse is a pov with nothing related to the project. Huib talk 12:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your diplomatic answer, and therefore I've given a more important reason for my vote-changing. MMaerkk 12:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One or two users or so adding articles, are almost never able to cope with this project to make it viable and interesting enough for the general public to read and visit. Romaine 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that someone can as a matter of course block users for reasons unrelated to the project (and yes, that is clear abuse, nothing pov about it) is significant, because it shows that the project has little potential to stand on its own feet. Guido den Broeder 12:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Erik1980 12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. HenkvD 18:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - at most only one or two newseditors at a time.[reply]
  35. Guido den Broeder 10:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Belgian man (nl na en) 22:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC) See Jeroen[reply]
  37. Grunnen 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Because no activity. --Dimitris 09:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 12:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC) - No Activity[reply]
    Indented IP's vote OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. --Jan eissfeldt 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Gidonb 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I agree with the analysis of the nominator. With regret, as I had proposed in the past to strengthen wikinews by moving the news activities within to nl.wikinews. This has not been done and as of yet (and the last couple of years), nl.wikinews does not justify its existence.[reply]


  1. Wikix 09:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Wikinews geeft de bijzondere gelegenheid zelf nieuwsonderwerpen te schrijven. Als een redelijk aantal personen de moeite neemt af en toe een nieuwsartikel te schrijven dan heb je vanzelf een tamelijk grote hoeveelheid nieuwsartikelen. Wikix 09:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    if you can muster a team to make this happen that would solve the case, but you must agree there are not enough people for this now and for quite some time already. very best, oscar 10:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People can still work on this project when its imported in to the Incubator, inside the Incubator the communety can grow and get there own site again if the site is strong enough. Huib talk 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Abigor: Exactly the same thing can happen in its actual place. Why all the hassle involved in incubating it? Is the "dust" collected in nl.wikinews grubbier or more toxic than the one collected in the Incubator? -- 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Sonty567 12:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose> Move the prominent "Actueel"-section on the Dutch Wikipedia main-page over to Wikinews. Wikipedia itself is an encyclopedia, not a news website.[reply]
    Tegen> De prominent op de voorpagina van de NL-wikipedia aanwezige sectie "Actueel" verwijderen door die te verplaatsen naar Wikinews. Wikipedia is tenslotte een encyclopedie, geen nieuwssite. Nieuwsfeiten geven bovendien veel aanleiding tot fouten omdat plaatsters menigmaal papegaai-achtige/discutabele bronnen gebruiken die geen journalistieke waarde hebben omdat bijv. hoor- en wederhoor ontbreekt. In hun haast brekend nieuws te brengen, lezen ze daarbij slecht wat er staat in de bron en schatten de bron onvoldoende in. Voor een encyclopedie een werkwijze die niet gewenst is, maar wel dus binnenkomende op de Wikipedia website direct in beeld komt. Behouden van Wikinews en doorsluizen "actueel"-sectie maakt daaraan een eind. Verder actuele gebeurtenissen (zoals Aanslag Koninginnedag) ook evt. op Wikinews laten ontwikkelen en pas na X dagen overplaatsen naar Wikipedia, het scheelt veel heethoofderij.
    Wikinews heeft gewoon geen meerwaarde. Waarom zullen mensen wikinews willen raadplegen. Nieuws dient direct beschikbaar te zijn. Er zijn gewoon te weinig mensen op wikinews. Bovendien raadplegen de meeste mensen,,, bbc news, cnn, etc. voor actueel nieuws. De nieuws sectie op Wikipedia zie ik als iets waardevols, aangezien mensen aan de hand daarvan direct naar verwante lemma's kunnen klikken. 13:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People can still work on this project when its imported in to the Incubator, inside the Incubator the communety can grow and get there own site again if the site is strong enough. Huib talk 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And why is that better than the same thing happening in its actual site? -- 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sonty567: Not completely clear what part of nl-Wikipedia you are refering to. Sometimes big news events do get an article on Wikipedia, and besides their style, there is no reason why big events shouldn't get included. Or maybe you refer to the daily updated news-section on the front page of nl-Wikipedia. The few lines which are added to the front page of Wikipedia are added to give users a way in to read articles about subjects that are relevant for news-stories, to understand and read about the background. Both on nl-Wikipedia aren't suitable for Wikinews, because the style of writing and those parts which are included, are different from the way of writing on Wikinews, and the short lines on the front page, are to short for Wikinews to give this project content. Wikinews has a different goal than Wikipedia, and that is visible in the articles which are added. So the your suggestion of move some things isn't workable. Greetings - Romaine 21:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Romaine: I'm indeed referring to moving Portaal:In het nieuws (Portal:Current events) that gets a prominent display in the Wikipedia hoofdpagina (Wikipedia mainpage) to Wikinews for the reason that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but not a news website. Furthermore Portaal in het nieuws has a very limited scope: the majority of the news-items focusses on wars, controverses, fights etc.
    Second of all I would like articles like nl:Aanslag tijdens Koninginnedag 2009 and nl:Turkish Airlines-vlucht 1951 to develop first in Wikinews, and get them only transferred after X days to Wikipedia for reasons that events like these are very speculative in the first hours/days and give edit-wars etc. A lot of very speculative contributions with some overheated users in the first days isn't a nice workable situation for an encyclopedia as well. --Sonty 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Erik Warmelink 19:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) See nl:Overleg:Aanslag tijdens Koninginnedag 2009 which is huge, and 90% (and probably 99%) should be under Dutch Wikinews.[reply]
    Should be... but isn't Huib talk 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Erik: the fact that this article is on wikipedia and that there is only a link to it from nl wikinews with a small sentence proofs for me nl wikinews is not viable at the moment. Akoopal 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erik: that is your personal opinion, but the article still is wanted on nl-wikipedia, and this happening is enough Encyclopedic (E) to have it in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Romaine 23:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    MMaerkk 11:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - Misschien kunnen we nog een groepje vormen waarmee we fanatiek aan de slag kunnen gaan om het zinkend schip te redden. Is sluiting niet wat te definitief? Gaat dit niet allemaal wat te snel? Is er geen proefperiode mogelijk? MMaerkk 11:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - beacuse of my recent unnecessary block over there I moved my vote.[reply]
  4. Holder 11:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --OosWesThoesBes 11:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC) - Ik zie het nut van sluiten niet boven het nut van open blijven. Stel dat er nu juist net nádat alles is dichtgesmeten een gebruiker aankomt die weer wél geïnteresseerd is.. Dit is enkel meer administratief werk voor de incubator (zij moeten de rotzooi en zo zien te importeren) en voor als iemand het later weer wil openen.[reply]
    Translation: I don't see the use of closing over the use of staying open. What if a user were to arrive just after everything has been locked up, and this user is interested.. This is simply more administrative work for the incubator (they have to clean up the mess and apparently import it) and if anyone wants to reopen it later on. Taketa 12:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. strongly oppose. A small activity, mainly in summer hollidays, doesn't justify a closure. Wikinews project needs contributor. One thing, some people confuses encyclopedy with news in wikipedia projects. --Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wimsito 13:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC) We can still save Wikinews-nl. If there would be a tool that brings together all dutch newsfeeds, so you could easily search for articles on the same subject, it would make the posting much easier. If there is enough interest, I would be interested to make it.[reply]
  8. Oppose We could ask Dutch people to contribute in the Dutch Wikinews. --RubiksMaster110 07:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Wikinews and other sister projects doesn't have many contributors and Wikipedia have many "articles - news". If nl.wn will go to Incubator, nobody will rescue it, and Wikinews's project will have less "power" and this effect increases Wikipedia's growth as a "news site" instead a encyclopedia. Superzerocool 15:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Virtlink Strongly oppose. Of all the 40+ above people 'supporting' the death sentence to Wikinews NL, only 7 of them (1234567) have ever contributed even a single article (under the same alias). The rest have no right to judge other people's work or lack of it, because they have not been helping either. Don't just count votes as if you're a dumb robot. And then:
    What is the advantage of putting Wikinews in the incubator. Who gets better by doing that? For whom is the Dutch Wikinews contaminating the Wiki experience? No one will ever write something for a project which is marked as being 'obsolete' and 'not worthy enough'. By putting it in the incubator, you are effectively making the project dead. There are not so many wikicapable dutch people and those few are mostly writing on Wikipedia and Wikibooks.
    The dutch Wikinews is not even doing so badly compared to other Wikinews projects ([3]), because there are as many as 14 Wikinews sites which then should also be incubated (based on both article count and user count), of which none are nominated for incubation. In short: it would be a very very stupid move. Virtlink 20:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am number eights, I was active there also. Huib talk 18:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose 14:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    removed ip vote Huib talk 17:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  11. Oppose Er is genoeg activiteit de laatste dagen. Openhouden A.U.B.! Mezelf14 11:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this vote was after the proposal had gone from 'proposed' to 'accepted'. - Andre Engels 09:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote was added after 'page lock' 11:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. (Replaced from support to here) Romaine 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC) - For several years now, the number of users that is active drops more and more. The number of activity over these years dropped on all the projects in Dutch (nl), but as Wikinews is a weak project within this group, the project is almost inactive. Almost all users that come to Wikinews have experience on other projects in Dutch and mostly know how to write well, but the nature of the project is totally different than on the other projects. At least, this is experienced that way. If we look at Wiktionary, we see a project that creates dictionary-entrances which are next year still relevant and accurate (same as before) and aren't then outdated. If we look at Wikibooks, we see a project that creates books, which mostly are next year still relevant and accurate, and not outdated. If we look at Wikiquote, we see a project of quotes from the past, and those are still nice to read in future, like over a year, and aren't then outdated. If we look at Wikisource, these primary sources are already dated, and that is where they are collected for. And if we look at Wikinews, users experience the written articles fast as outdated (next weak, or even next day, the new article is for the general public much less interesting). This together with the much attention Wikipedia in the media gets, and almost no attention for Wikinews. This together with the much higher number of visitors for Wikipedia, and less for Wikinews. And this together with the Dutch media-market (much competition from the big number of professional and paid news-websites that write in Dutch, like and many others) doesn't make it for Wikinews in Dutch easy to have a share in the market/attention from the public to read. The Dutch community hasn't enough users to have the power to cope with the Dutch news/media-market. Wikinews is growing very slowly, and this is very well shown with the last milestone we reached with 1.000 articles on this project: January 8th, 2009, and the project started in January 2005. The thought of closing is present for a long time, and within this period, no real changes has been seen on the project to keep it vital and capable of being a player of sufficient news-articles to attrack enough public to make the project interesting. Romaine 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, moving into incubator, as the some people think as sollution, isn't a sollution, as nothing really changes, besides the location of where the project can be found. If the project is closed, meaning contributors can't edit, only maintenance by systops/stewards may be a temporary solution. However I do think that keeping it open isn't a good idea, but closing itn't either, as there is no really good alternative to me for projects that ran into the departure of community because of other more primary things to do. Romaine 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Note No local notice about this proposal by the requester. Barras 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It now has been announced in the newscafe on wikinews NL Koektrommel 20:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also announced in the village pump on the Dutch WP Koektrommel 08:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only reason I read about this closure is the "no activity" argument. I guess people perceive inactivity in the proper site as a worse thing than inactivity in the Incubator but I am still unable to see why. Could somebody tell me what the advantages of closing Dutch Wikinews and incubate it are versus keeping it in its current site? Thanks. Regards. -- 12:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it at the current site suggests more or less that this is a full-grown and active project, which, unfortunately, it is not. That may be misleading, or at the very least will disappoint the reader. It's somewhat comparable to all those thousands of websites that haven't been updated for more than five years: one could say that each of these sites must have some additional value, but overall, they're just a nuisance and a disappointment: they show up in search results, but do not offer any up-to-date information. Paul B 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews still will show up in search results if it is moved to incubator. If it is moved, only the location would change where the information can be found. In some way, a real closure of a Wikimedia-project isn't possible in some way. Romaine 22:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a closure of wikinews as proposed above should result in a frozen read-only site (possibly moved and renamed into incubator) which can be made active (editable) again when a sufficient number of people indicate they want to work actively on the project. Michiel1972 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
> Keeping it at the current site suggests more or less that this is a full-grown and active project, which, unfortunately, it is not.
Well, a wiki is a wiki. Why a wiki should suggest is "big" or as "active"? Saying that sounds as if only readers count. A wiki is there both for readers and editors. And nobody has to tell anybody when to edit. Why not leaving it ready (and easy) to be edit as it is now? I think many people is starting to forget (or never has really known) what a wiki is. A nuisance? A disappointment? I call other things such, not certainly a low activity Wikimedia wiki. Moving it to the Incubator still seems to me a bigger source of problems (some real, some potential) than leaving it where it is. Regards. -- 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who sometimes contribute to Wikinews NL. This request is for Closure, not incubation, while I think that most people supporting Koektrommel think about incubation. When I look at the list of closed projects, Wikinews NL is nowhere near as inactive enough to justify closure. This is a Proposal for closing just because it can. Virtlink 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've got a really simple question: What would be the benefit of this project being closed? I don't understand why this should be moved to Incubator, just because "there is not activity". The langcom handles all new requests, including those of closed projects. Dutch Wikinews certainly meets eligibility and localisation requirements. But it wouldn't meet the activity requirements. So, only because it is inactive, it should be closed? Something like "Almost nobody contributes to the project, so they should be disallowed to contribute". This reminds me of what people call "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I would apply that to this case, and do some more useful things. Groeten, SPQRobin (inc!) 18:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a notice on the top of this page that the project will be closed... Anyway, I still don't understand what's the benefit. SPQRobin (inc!) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Less clutter, less chance of a take-over by POV-pushers, one less wiki to check for vandalism, one less project for people to laugh about when talking about Wikimedia. - Andre Engels 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Clutter" is not really a specific argument.. Take-over by POV-pushers: They would be noticed quickly, and blocked. It does not happen that often. Vandalism: this used to be common in the past, but since there is a global blacklist, there is no vandalism anymore on inactive wikis. And they can still laugh with it when it is just locked. SPQRobin (inc!) 11:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The project of the Dutch Wikinews is closed on February 23rd, 2010. [4] - Romaine 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How sad is that. --Diego Grez return fire 22:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Romaine. Guido den Broeder 10:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The wiki has just been reopened, following a successful appeal to the Language committee. - dcljr (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]