Hello, all:
There are two requests at "Proposals for Closing Projects" that have been lingering for a long while without action here. I am wondering whether or not we can work to close these two requests.
Since the creation of this request in January 2015, about 20 users have commented. In general, the arguments SUPPORTING state that there are only 37 (or so) mainspace pages in the wiki, that almost none have been created in the last several years, and that some of the pages seem to be spam-like. In other words, on top of inactivity, there is also a lack of content. The arguments OPPOSING basically state that "inactivity is not a reason", and that the project does no harm remaining open.
I'm thinking that perhaps Milos (in particular) should take a look at this project. From a pure policy perspective, I don't think there is a justification to close the project. Yet I do wonder whether or not a project in this condition wouldn't be better served by being imported into Incubator.
In this case, the proposal was posted in October 2016. About two dozen support, and 4–5 oppose. The OPPOSES again basically state "inactivity is no reason". Even when the project is idle, it is worthwhile having it available in case something happens that stimulates people to kick it back into gear.
The SUPPORTS state that there was some partially unrecoverable vandalism (such that the dates on many news items were reset to the date the vandalism was reverted). Apparently much of the support comes from the Norwegian Wikipedia community, too—and there is quite a bit of talk about a "soft closure" such as happened at Swedish Wikinews if this proposal fails. Jon Harald, would you mind having a look?
Again, it's hard for me to see a justification for this from a pure policy perspective. Yet the rebirth of Dutch Wikinews from Incubator earlier this year makes we wonder if the project wouldn't be better better served from Incubator.
Thanks to all for your follow-up.
Steven
Sent from Outlook