Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Simple English Wikiquote and Wikibooks

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 not be deleted.

A Language Committee member provided the following comment:
Proposal was withdrawn, and projects will not be deleted. That said, at least with respect to Wikibooks, it's probably not a bad idea to add a link to b:Wikijunior to the closure notice shown on each page, and I will request that. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Type: 2 (non-routine proposal)
Proposed outcome: deletion
Proposed action regarding the content: should be redirected to English Wikiquote and English Wikibooks
Notice on the project: Simple English Wikipedia, Simple English Wiktionary, English Wikipedia, English Wiktionary, English Wikibooks and English Wikiquote
Informed Group(s): (Which chapters, wiki projects, and other community groups have been informed, if any.)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose to delete the Simple English Wikiquote and Simple English Wikibooks because it makes no sense to host these projects that have been previously closed. Also, these projects won't be restarted or moved to Incubator because of new policies. I propose these wikis to be redirected to their regular English counterparts. Agusbou2015 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(from LangCom): Deletion is a pretty unusual remedy in most cases; we normally leave projects in place unless their presence is interfering with the overall mission of WMF. Can you give me reason consistent with CPP why we should delete these? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81:. Sorry, I want to withdraw my deletion proposal. Agusbou2015 (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support - with the proviso it is crawled and archived by Wayback first. I can help arrange assuming they can/will. -- GreenC (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Yes, there are many copies of these wikis crawled on Internet Archive. [1] [2] Agusbou2015 (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikibooks we already have b:Wikijunior to host this kind of content. On Wikiquote I can't see the interest of separating one author's quotes with only simple words on another site, but the purpose of this site is apparently more to translate every quote in simple terms, which will indeed, simplify their meanings too. JackPotte (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion per GreenC if the wiki's content – including the latest dump file, all page revisions and diffs (if possible) – is stored on the Wayback Machine. I don't think there's much reason to keep permanently closed wikis around forever on WMF servers (unless attribution requires the existence of the original content at its original URL), and the useful content should have been repurposed on active wikis for a while now. Jc86035 (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Disagree We deleted the Klingon and Siberian ones due to extraordinary circumstances. While we should never have made the Simple projects, it doesn't serve any good to actually delete them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I support them remaining closed, I see no reason to delete them. Vermont (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Even though this is technically a seperate depate, I feel the substance of the debate will basically be the same as the most recent Simple closure debate. Either we are keeping the Simple projects, or we aren't. The consensus has been, we're keeping them. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is already closed, there is no valid reason for deletion besides "I don't like it". — regards, Revi 08:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just, no. f1shster
There is no reason to delete it, it is already closed and moving it to the wayback machine would just be offloading the archiving of it to another service that could just disappear. It's better if its left how it is. -Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deleting these wikis. If anything, they should be reopened. Lojbanist (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

~~Wasn't a proposal to delete simple just closed? GMG ^talk~~

@GreenMeansGo: That earlier proposal was for the simple English versions of Wikipedia and Wiktionary. This is for the Wikiquote and Wikibooks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry. I started a comment striking my own comment but then I got a phone call. I don't have a strong opinion and don't really understand what it would take to reconstitute these projects if they were opened again from archives. GMG ^talk 00:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense is a personal opinion and not sufficient reasoning to base a decision on. Some more detailed explanation of why it makes no sense would help. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I realize I'm late to this discussion, but I also wanted to note for future requests that unless there are extenuating circumstances (which I don't see here), sysadmins are unlikely to implement any requests for outright deletion of entire wikis. Legoktm (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Legoktm, FYI: From LangCom's perspective, the way the requests from November 2017 were handled—URL's were directed away from the databases, and people (who are not sysadmins) effectively don't have access to them—is functionally a "deletion". LangCom does not approve even that sort of "deletion" except under pretty unusual circumstances. Beyond that, our attitude is that it's up to the sysadmins how they wish to handle things. If there is some content so egregious that we think data has to be deleted outright, we'll tell you. But given the current state of affairs, that is unlikely-approaching-won't-happen. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]