Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Wolof Wikiquote

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

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.

Result: CLOSE. MF-Warburg(de) 09:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC) A user is interested in editing there, let's wait. --MF-Warburg(de) 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to close this discussion within 4 days from now, if there are no other opinions. MF-Warburg(de) 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only activity on the Wolof wikiquote is the index.php spambot. Ahoerstemeier 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one new editor. --OosWesThoesBes 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for closing

  1. This is a response by the Wolof Wikipedia community, is in favour of closing the Wolof Wikiquote and Wiktionary:
    It's okay to close the project now. Just don't make it too hard to reopen it in the future. There might be a bigger Wolof speaking community active on this Wikipedia at some point, and they could decide to work on a Wolof Wiktionary. Guaka 11 juillet 2007 à 12:32 (UTC) [1] --Johannes Rohr 13:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No substantial activity within a year except int'l cleanup team. Recentchanges in the latest 365 days. --Aphaia 11:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The times have changed. --OosWesThoesBes 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Recent activity suggests meta maintenance (cleanup by stewards) only. Localisation is poor (44%) with some localisation activity in the past months. My opinion is that carrying multiple projects by an extremely small community does not benifit the language as a whole. First make one project a succes, and build new projects from a growing community. Few people can only do few things well. Siebrand 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree that recent changes seems to show that there's not much actually going on right now, particularly when you filter it to main namespace pages only. I see only five mainspace edits in the last year that appear to actually build content -- all by the same contributor, on the same day, in November 2007. That means there's been no new content -- none at all -- added in six months. Ral315 (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that same contributor might had some more important things to do. Now he's back and closing this project won't benefit someone too, does it? --SF-Language 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose closure

  1. Oppose: There are 2 articles now and I will continue, Those articles are written in Wolof. SF-Language 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose for now. Revisit in early December 2007 to see if anything's changed; if not close per Wolof community recommendation above. --A. B. (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: I was wrong, currently 3 pages. Active. --OosWesThoesBes 08:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: Now at 8 content pages, of which 5 appear to contain Wolof text. (and no spam) --Coppertwig 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems to be growing a bit. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Now 81 articles. Semi-active. Sr13 20:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Kanzler31 01:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. per above--Andrijko Z. 18:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What should be done about this one? Looks like our sole saviour/editor has stopped editing back in 2008. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]