It has just an incomlpete book. Limburgish Wikibooks doesn't have any admins and in the past month it has had 2 active users each just 1 edit. In other words it's completely inactive. --Doostdar (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Doostdar (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not closure wikis. --Mtherwjs (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Sockpuppet of banned vandal. —MarcoAurelio 19:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Like something in Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Wikipedia Masri (Egyptian Arabic Dialect): Have you notified this project (and probably the Wikipedia in this language)? Perhaps you should also contact the WMNL. This is a requirement per policy. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   There are notifications in Limburgish Wikpedia [5], Limurgish Wikibooks main page [6] and formal discussion page [7] and also in Wikibooks Reading Room [8]. --Doostdar (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Inactivity is not a reason for closure and it has more than one incomplete book. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   But absence of content is surely a good reason for that. --Doostdar (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Fortunately, there is no such absence of content. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. No. Just no. What on Earth would you gain by closing this project? Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 12:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   We will reach more accurate and trusty Wikibooks projects which anyone can rely on them and use them. --Doostdar (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   All Limburgish projects are regularly checked by the active users of the Limburgish Wikipedia to make sure vandalism and inaccurate contents are removed or adapted. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   You can use Dutch Wikibooks instead of Limburgish Wikibooks. --Doostdar (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   No. Dutch Wikibooks is written in Dutch; Limburgish additions are not allowed as it is, in fact, a different language, which is recognized as a separate language by the Dutch government: en:European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Inactivity is not a reason. --Rschen7754 05:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope you had investigated pages content. --Doostdar (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Please elaborate what is wrong with the pages content. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   According to CPP, inactivity is not a reason, per policy. --Rschen7754 00:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5. It is more-or-less active for today. --Wolverène (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that from the time this proposal was started, the Limburgish Wikibooks has risen from place 54 in the table to 51 50 49, which is a minor growth, but still a lot more than over most of the other Wikibooks, which indicates that this proposal is a ridiculous one. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]