Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for expansion (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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The result of the discussion was  Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for expansion
Also Requests for expansion/Archive.

It probably made sense to retain this for historic purposes back when the "expand" template was still around (as the template was indeed created for this project and used to mention it by name), but now? It's just an ancient list of content that has either been a.) sufficiently tagged for maintenance/tagged as stub, b.) deleted/redirected, c.) sufficiently expanded or d.) isn't lacking to the point that it needs attention drawn to it.

Pretty much all of the discussion on the talk page was "Isn't this redundant to [some other cleanup/expansion project]?" (yes) and/or "Does this even work?" (no). So even from day one, this project's purpose was pretty much overlapped by a great deal of other projects. I see no reason why we should leave this page to gather dust — it's not like it has historical significance despite its age. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - All failed proposals/processes are archived; I can't think of any exceptional circumstances that require the old RFE page to be treated any differently. The page has 4,170 edits, and such a large number of edits should not be deleted without a very good reason. Most of the contributors to this page were making good faith atempts to improve articles that they'd found ... they may not have been successful in most cases but they still should be recorded for posterity. Graham 87  06:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator previously tried to delete this, consensus ending in preserving it for historical reasons. There is no reason to erase history.    D r e a m Focus  06:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. No likelihood of a dust problem.  We shouldn't delete our history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.