Jump to content

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Kirundi Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed.

Closed, as new policy is in place ("all current proposals will be made invalid").

I propose the closure of Kirundi Wikipedia.

Kirundi Wikipedia can not show off a lot of content. After cleanup, there are "24 pages which are probably legitimate content pages". Of these, many do not actually contain a sentence in Kirundi (including the Main Page itself). If you discount these, only around 15 pages are left.

While there's no encyclopedic activity on the wiki, it is heavily abused by vandals, more so than other wikis in a similar state. Without any user who speaks the language and takes care of the wiki, this vandalism often stays unnoticed for months and creates a large burden for stewards to clean up.

In my opinion, the effort to keep this wiki vandalism free is not worth it, and it is better off in the Incubator. -- Prince Kassad 19:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Support I had temporary admin rights here for a while for cleanup, and I see that the project is quite inactive and contains little valuable information. Support closure for now. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Very, very inactive. —§ stay (sic)! 18:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Rīdzinieks 15:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Xqt 14:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Agree with JC. Pmlineditor  12:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --.snoopy. 11:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support -FASTILY (TALK) 05:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Tomreves 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support closing this project or potentially merging with another (see the oppose comments below). There's been no content creation in the last 30 days.[1] I respect the oppose comments which say there should be a Kirundi Wikipedia just as Kirundi speakers should have better Internet access. Unfortunately, we don't have a real Wikipedia to offer them -- just a "pretend" Wikipedia with no active editors (other than spam and vandalism clean-up people that don't speak Kirundi). We can always restart when someone steps forward who will actually start building content. In the meantime, this project is just wasting others time on cleanup. --A. B. (talk)
  10. Support --Underlying lk 03:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis? The above reasons for closure are mostly dated and irrelevant now (they are all from at least 6 months ago), the project has grown from 24 to 152 articles, and there is recent activity. Greenman 23:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Something tells me you haven't looked at these "articles"... -- Prince Kassad 23:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Nothing more than a Heaven for Vandals. Vibhijain 10:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Nothing has changed and articles like rn:Tegucigalpa, rn:Mirong’indwe and so on are not really what can be called an article. The wiki has no real content, no real community and no real activity and that should be enough to close it and move it back to the incubator. -- Dferg ☎ talk 20:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Per above. Striker talk 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support some test-wikis in incubators have more articles and more good article than Kirundi Wikipedia --Jagwar 交談 homewiki 18:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Oppose Kirundi is very close to Kinyarwanda, which means that content could be easily adapted from the latter. Another possibility would be to find a way to merge the two projects - but that would require some discussion with interested parties. Closure, IMO, is a blunt instrument that would be misused in this case. It seems inappropriate to discuss closure before an effort is made to find and work with interested parties, not only Kirundi-speaking users but also folks involved in rw.wikipedia.org. I'll mention this on Afrophonewikis.--A12n 14:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Kirundi es el idioma nacional de un país. No creo que debamos cerrar esta edición. --Node ue 12:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I do believe that most of the content is legit. What this wiki needs is promotion to native speaker. --Pineapple fez 01:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Needs work, but its fairly correct, Not a big reason to delete it, all languages are important. (sorry for sining with my IP, i wasent signed in.) Dappl 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I don't think that Kirundi Wikipedia should be closed, If we don't promote the activity of native Wikipedias, those Wikipedias will be more inactive, even few articles, even one article created in a long period of time is useful for the spread of culture. --Noder4 20:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose --Sarvaturi 07:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Little wikipedias are useful, even if they have a low number of new articles.[reply]
  7. Oppose Per above + considering Jose77's comment. -- Prokurator11 05:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I generally disagree with closing projects just because they're inactive. What harm is this project doing? What additional benefits does closing it provide over keeping it open? Any vandalism is quickly reverted by our SWMT team. Kirundi has almost ten million speakers - that's at least as much as Bulgarian or Greek, for instance - it's just unfortunate that part of the world has such limited connection to the Internet. This might change, though, as the developing world gets more access to computers. Give it a chance. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Tempodivalse shows my thoughts completely. Diego Grez return fire 01:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Kirundi wikipedia has been increased.--Lousyi 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Kirundi Wikipedia articles has been increased.Digimon Adventure 03:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Cleaned up some vandalism. And although there has been some vandalism in the last few days, it's only one vandal. Hopefully we can put some locks on pages so only legit users will edit. Kanzler31 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose exactly per Tempodivalse fr33kman t - c 14:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose As per Jose77 Luka666 12:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose No deleting! KiRundi is smilar KinyaRwanda. I write KinyaRwanda Wikipedia (rw). KinyaRwanda Wikipedia now 1100 page (before me -100 pages). On the Internet, KiRundi sites is very very small, but KinyaRwanda sites are very very big. KiRundi is official language of Burundi. Internet in Burundi is less than. The KiRundi version Wikipedia no deleting; please, no deleting! --Kmoksy 09:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose --Baba Tabita 10:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose -- Strongly oppose - there have been 5 articles created in the last 5 days, and this is showing signs of life. There is no reason to move to incubator, and it would be a huge step backwards. The last support for closure was in June 2010 - can we close this discussion now? Greenman 23:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose --N KOziTalk 05:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Signs of life, no uncontrollable vandalism problem.. why close? Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

It might be pertinent to compare situations of Moldova/Romanian and Twi/Akan.--A12n 15:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Firiberi NTIBITANGIRA. As a Burundian I would like to express my opinion about that closure proposal of Kirundi Wikipedia:

Please try to understand a people which is oppressed by more or less 1% of Burundians under colonisation of french culture. Burundi has only one language: Kirundi. There are many kirundi tools that have been elaborated to study our language: dictionaries, grammar and writting. Unfortunately, the above 1% is made by Burundians who have political and religious power in the country. The 99% of Burundians are oppressed but have no possibility to express themselves. Wikipedia offers a chance to those who loves the Burundians and want to help them. If there is few informations on Kirundi Wikipedia, you must understand that in african countries which are still colonised by stranger cultures, we are always working for Dominaters’ interests. Rare is the time for working for interests of our peoples. That’s why our initiatives take much time to be achieved. But even if we are under such conditions, we are doing something and please try to understand us. Instead of closing Kirundi Wikipedia please support us.


Reasons why Kirundi Wikipedia is inactive:

  • According the CIA World Factbook, Burundi is ranked 191th (3rd to last) for GDP per Capita.
  • An ethnic civil war from 1993 to 2006 killed 300,000 Burundians.
  • Approximately 80% of Burundi's population of 8,691,005 live in poverty.
  • Burundi's literacy rate is low, due to low school attendance. Ten percent of Burundian boys are allowed a secondary education.
  • As of 2006, only 60,000 (0.69%) of Burundians have access to the internet. --Jose77 03:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burundi population 9,511,330 (est. 2009) - Internet users in Burundi (2009) - 65 000, so only 5 000 more than 3 years ago. That is the reason why Kirundi wiki is inactive. [2]

I must agree I-20the highway 00:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since July 2010 by my count there have been 11 opposes to closure, and 0 supports. Suggest closing this proposal with a consensus for keep. Greenman 23:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose to close this request as failed if there are no further objections within seven days. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite 18 people opposing above saying that the situation has changed, the fact is that the assertion is not accurate. As I state in support #12, there's no real content, no real activity and as stated by the opposers itselves there's no community. -- Dferg ☎ talk 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It does have content, just six clicks of Random Page and I was able to find two articles of this quality. Either way, more people want it to remain than want it closed, the reasons don't matter. fr33kman 21:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussions are obviously not a vote and facts should be taken into count. I think you were very lucky with the random page button, because having using it in the past when I submitted my comment and now again I can only find "articles" of this quality which are obviously innapropiate as non-encyclopedical. -- Dferg ☎ talk 17:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw Dferg's edit in RC, so I tried to check the content of the "articles" there once again. Of 10 random pages, 2 had more than a single sentence, 5 only contained the title and several pictures, 2 had a single sentence and one was completely blank (had only interwikis). I agree with Dferg that Fr33k must have been very lucky with Special:Random as the articles are not really what I can call useful to be honest. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.