Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikibooks (2)

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

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

The following discussion is closed: community was not notified as requested, bad faith nomination, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
see also Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikibooks

The project Simple English Wikibooks needs to be discontinued. This issue came to my attention today. I have never been a big fan of any of the Wikibooks, especially this one (I don't see the point as much as Wikipedia or other projects. There are only 3 admins (none of which are active), and no crats, and only about a few active editors. Additionally.there are currently 10 requests for deletion: One from May 2008! The bottom line is, this project is dead. How many people atually look at it? And how helpful is it if almost nobody is active? Please consider my proposal. ѕwirlвoy  20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


  1. As nom ѕwirlвoy  20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    I am a bit iffy on supporting this idea, it does seem like a big issue would be if its inactivity was causing breaches of the WMF base policies,but I've not seen that put forward or proven. I am a little dismayed to see some chaps I respect so ready to ascribe ulterior motives. It seems SwirlBoy39 has a genuine belief that the Simple projects are shagged (Or at least, it is easy to assume that, to ascribe good faith), perhaps the soluton is to point out to him that if his proposals are constantly getting rejected he should consider that, right or wrong, consensus appears to be against him and he might do better, if he thinks there are things wrong, in trying to fix those projects and then bringing the issue back here if they are still 'broken' after a few months of trying. Narson 16:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thing is, Swirly is an admin on Simple Wikiquote, yet it's the only project he's not nominated. This at least to me suggests ulterior motives. I wonder what he'd vote if his own project came up? Majorly talk 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The thing that makes me wonder is:
He ask for adminship on the simple wikibooks. He didn't get it so he nominate is for closure.
Very strange to ask for adminship and closure on one day. Abigor talk 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


  1. Abigor talk 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC) It has 14 users that edit on it. It is not a big and active wiki but a small wiki that keeps working. I see no reasson to close it. I don't understand why you are asking for adminrights on the project and asking to close it on the same time.
  2. Oh not again. These proposals to remove the Simple English projects are getting tiresome. Oppose closure because it has an active community getting on with it. Majorly talk 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Swirlboy, just because your adminship request failed on that wiki doesn't mean you go and nominate that wiki for closure..this is NOT the way we do stuff here !!! ...--Cometstyles 23:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    That's not why I nomm'd it. I was nomming it as the thing happened in #wikipedia-simple. ѕwirlвoy  23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    Would You have proposed it for closure if You had been given adminstatus there, I ask myself (You can answer in my place, might be interesting too), best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    I concur with birdy, would you have ? ...--Cometstyles 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    He has not nominated Simple Wikiquote, but he has nominated Books and Wiktionary. Unsurprisingly, he's an admin on Quote. Majorly talk 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Despite the apparent bad faith nomination, Simple English Wikibooks does good work. Active and has a reasonable output. Definite potential for expansion, and by that, I mean it's certainly not a dead project, as the nomination leads us to believe. Useful, active and productive, there is no reason to close it. Best, PeterSymonds 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. There are editors, you just have to look harder. I notice that SB39 didn't notify the community in the slightest. Microchip08 15:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose – a fine active project. American Eagle (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)