Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Kirundi Wikipedia 2

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.

A Language Committee member provided the following comment:
No consensus. --Millosh (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Type: 1 (routine proposal)
Proposed outcome: closure
Proposed action regarding the content: should be transferred to Wikimedia Incubator
Notice on the project: Community Portal
Informed Group(s): (Which chapters, wiki projects, and other community groups have been informed, if any.)

Only 8 articles with more content than images and a summary, one may be a duplicate of another, with the latest activity (in the mainspace other than bots and vandalism) being 3 Months ago. 72.65.238.239 21:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support closure. As the nominator explains, the wiki is devoid of Kirundi-language content: Even though many pages exist, most do not contain more than a few words of the Kirundi language. On top of that, the interface is completely in English, and there is no community to speak of. In short, very little useful content is present on this wiki, and nothing is happening to make it better. The content should be moved to Incubator so it can grow properly. This, that and the other (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support closure.~~ This is a very small wiki with content, but no native speaker around to make the wiki evolve and to translate the interface which is completely in English as This, that and the other noticed.Jagwar grrr... 23:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC). I now oppose per the moratorium below. Jagwar grrr... 19:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No reason for closure, as per Closing projects policy, "Note that small/inactive wikis do not generally cause harm if they stay open: automatic spam is always blocked, contrary to the past". I think it is more beneficial for this project and give him more potential for future growth to keep its own project than being in the Incubator. Amqui (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to add that I started to do some outreach to Kirundi speakers and some have mentioned they will be interested in writing articles, so let's see. Amqui (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Kirundi is a national language of Burundi, so I think the wiki has at least a small chance for development in the indefinite future. There's nothing wrong in "image—summary" articles, it's absolutely normal for many projects, even bigger than this one. Although, pages with image(s) only should be removed, of course, but their presence isn't a reason for closure (as well as inactivity isn't a serious argument too). --Midnight Gambler (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Midnight Gambler. Would it have made it out of Incubator today? probably not, but what's done is done and I don't think closing it would solve the issue. --Rs chen 7754 19:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Oppose - extant language - outreach might help at some point. Casliber (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An official language which is spoken by nine million people. Hopefully, outreach will help make this project more active. --Glaisher [talk] 16:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nontrivial language with potential to expand. There are no benefits to closing this wiki over leaving it open, even if it is not currently populated: 1) It is not hogging WMF resources. The strain on servers and SWMT is negligible. 2) If contributors to this project are found, it will be easier for them to have an independent wiki to contribute to, instead of petitioning to get the project out of the Incubator. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Again, there is obviously nobody committed to making the wiki more popular, which would be necessary even when there is Outreach support. If I had a language I wanted a wiki for, I would at least work on an appealing main page, say, for an afternoon. Seems as if not even that has happened. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 23:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearance of the main page is not a reason for closure. See also the proposal for a moratorium on closing African language projects. --Midnight Gambler (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason (usually for type 1). Main pages usually contain content, not (really) in this case. I do not agree with the proposal (for a moratorium on closing African language projects; updated by FDMS (WP: en, de) 20:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)). |FDMS (WP: en, de) 19:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not agree with the proposal, why do you support it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the proposal for a moratorium on closing African language projects. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 20:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Open projects should have a community and some measure of viability. This project should be closed, while Ancient Greek should be brought out of the Incubator where it does not belong. Varlaam (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, wiki in extinct language is better than wiki in language with official status. 310 articles are enough to keep. --Midnight Gambler (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is simply no reason to close this Wikipedia, and we and others are working to provide content into Rundi, which is a major language. CFCF (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per CFCF. It is easier for people in this language to get involved if their is a bit already there. Additionally we are creating content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per This, that and the other.--176.104.111.29 17:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though I really don’t like the idea of closing these kinds of projects, this project should definitely be closed and moved to the incubator until it develops a community. Countries like Burundi are decades behind the rest of the world, the language Kirundi language has 8.8 million speakers and is the national language of Burundi, and yet incredibly few of its speakers have internet access, there is also the problem of limited access to education and widespread illiteracy. The result of these circumstances has led to this project being devoid of content, few of the articles are more than mere stubs, many of them are single sentences, and many are not even in Kirundi, some were still partly in English possibly from a poorly done bot translation, according to the stats, there is currently 1 active member, and very few edits are being made see recent changes. This project has little potential for growth at this moment, perhaps in time, maybe just a few years down the road, when there are a handful of Kirundi speakers who are both able and willing to participate then the project could be revived, but in the meantime it should be moved to the incubator just as the following languages were: Afar, Ndonga, Kanuri, Kwanyama and Herero. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Oppose: in the last few months the wiki has gained in activity, and some of the articles that I had noticed were in English are no longer there, I change my vote to support the moratorium. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oppose check all the pages of rn: if there is no content... Vincentangeles005 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 6 million speakers o_O why not closing [1] then ?? Macadam1 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many persons speak this language. It is really a necessary project. --Sarvaturi (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amqui's points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per many of the points made above. Also, since Kirundi is a "neighbor language" of Kinyarwanda, could something like Skanwiki be developed to help build the editions for both in tandem? (Kinyarwanda is currently much stronger.)--A12n (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the reasons of “This, that and the other”. --Josep Maria Roca Peña (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Official language of a ten-millions inhabitants country, with a great potential of developments. Let the kirundi-speakers (and writers) do what they can, in a very difficult political context, to improve this project. --Laurent Jerry (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reading about 10 articles with the Random page only rn:Kanada can be considered as a stub, all others are monophrase except one that was only two images, with also 19 logged actions in 30 days I really think that it's better to move back to Incubator, grow it up there and restore wiki where there will be a stable community and real content. --Gce (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any decision about it? --Midnight Gambler (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know LangCom. They like to take their time. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moratorium

I think we should meditate about a proposal for a moratorium on closing African language projects. Jagwar grrr... 23:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for calling attention to this proposal.--A12n (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]