Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No consensus to delete, but I am going to mark as historical. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group[edit]

Tiny workgroup inactive for 5-7 years with a couple of main contributors indeffed. Don't believe this NRM warrant a separate workgroup. The Falun Gong portal was deleted a month ago. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Mark as Historical. If there is a policy providing that defunct workgroups are deleted, I would like to see it. Otherwise, deleting workgroups that should instead be marked as stillborn seems like an attempt at time travel -- and time travel is dangerous because you might destroy yourself retroactively. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and burn whatever is left The Falun Gong walled garden, along with its associated pages, Arbcom disputes and edit wars was one of the worst failures Wikipedia has experienced with regard to contemporary political issues. If the working group has fallen into disuse, that is for the best, and anything that can be done to keep it from becoming a time sink on the various drama boards (such as by eliminating its last remnants) is for the betterment of the project. Simonm223 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasons for deletion of Portals, namely that they are of negative impact to readers who encounter them, does not apply to WikiProjects that are solely directed to editors and are collections of resources for the improvement of mainspace articles. Yes, Falun Gong is a POV-risk topic, and may be subject to editor disputes and formal editor behavioural remedies, but these do not amount to a reason to delete this reasonable collection, albeit small, of resources for a well defined subject area. There is no case to delete the history of this work, and the context for for the history. Inactive WikiProject members, and troubles with selected members, are not reasons to expunge the history. A case may be made for archive with prejudice, but I do not see evidence that that case has even been put forward. Inactive WikiProjects should be left tagged "inactive", and not brought to MfD unless there is a good reason for deleting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.