This was intended to go on to the completed adoption, but the revamp prevents you from doing so, so here it is on your Message Wall instead ;)
I read all of what you had to write so bear me the courtesy of doing the same for this.
"While you do have one now, it doesn't appear as that you've directed much attention towards it."
Because I'm a human being with other priorities? Other wikis to tend to? Other obligations that I'm required to act on, namely real-life work? Other daily activities to do? Only an unregistered user who contributes very little in the way of substance, someone who seems to take the Wiki as their own personal dumping ground, and a community central member who is impotent to stop spam due to lack of adequate tools bestowed on to him are the other people I've been able to find in the Wiki Activity - it is a little difficult when several hundred edits are made each day by the same person. But do show me the other people I appear to have ignored since you evidently have the time on your hands. I'll be sure to talk to them. But if a Community Central member isn't enough of a swaying vote I highly doubt anyone else is. If this platform has decided to let unregistered users call the shots around here I don't really have a response. Nearly a decade on here, tens of thousands of edits across countless Wikis, and you'd think I was some rank outsider.
"Also the tone is a bit off. It's not meant to be a declaration, where you just say, "I'm going to adopt the wiki." Nor should you be putting such statements in your edit summaries."
What do you expect me to do? Congratulate people for spamming? Give them a pat on the back for making more irrelevant mess that I'd have to clean up were I an admin? Just IGNORE the massive elephant that keeps trampling everything in the room? The sole reason I've put so little effort into my pages is that I know sooner or later they're going to be vandalized, and I will be literally powerless to stop it. No point in making a good page if someone's going to take a digital poop on it.
With regards to "confrontational", these people are submitting fanon to a factual Wiki, and you expect me to be nice to them? Do people win internet arguments by being nice to trolls? Or do the admins just ban and deplatform them outright?
As for the next paragraph you've wrote, I'm viewing my campaign as doing a job that others apparently can't be bothered to do - namely taking care of neglected or otherwise abandoned Wikis that have been brought to the attention of others multiple times in this here forum - to which the best advice I received was to take adminship. Now that I'm actually following that advice it seems I'm back to square one. There are hundreds, if not thousands of Wikis just like this one. Formerly of good information, long since having fallen to the wayside by way of vandals.
An example: for half a decade, the Midtown Madness 2 wiki has had a link to someone's fanon "game" (literally just drawings on a piece of paper) on the main page, and no-one has been able to modify it since. It took verbal takedowns from members of a similar community to finally bring "Owli Powli" back to some semblance of reality, even if they were a little hostile about it. Whichever admin gave that "Owli" person bureaucrat privileges on the MM2 Wiki is a Grade A troglodyte responsible for the downfall of this platform, pure and simple.
All in all, what a complete farce. That's all I'll say. Not your fault, since you're just doing your job. This flawed, counter-intuitive system needs a revamp sooner rather than later. You need to make constant edits for 7 days+ to file for adminship but only 1 edit every 60 days to keep a hold of it. Many potential admins clearly passionate about their Wikis have been denied simply because they forgot to edit for one day, and invalidated hundreds of their previous edits. Or because its power-hogging admin simply refuses to relinquish their ownership and let someone else take charge. Surely you can see this is flawed.
As noted on the request, I'm not seeing any real evidence of an increased audience. The original assessment needs to stand — just as it did in another case handled by a different staff member. Just because one wiki about reviews is deemed adoptable, it doesn't necessarily follow that another will be.
In the wake of rebranding as "Fandom", we're actually moving away from the term "wikia" to describe a site hosted by Fandom. So I would take issue with Love Robin's description as "and the wikis it hosts". Here in the 2020s, we'd generally prefer that an individual wiki be called "a wiki".
"Wikia" is more of an historical term, just like "Wikicities", the original name we called inidividual wikis.