Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an RFX

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: keep. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 07:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an RFX[edit]

Short reason: This happens more often than not. A successful RFA or RFB is rare NOT to gain the support of over 100 people as it looks today. Perhaps it was rarer in the previous days of WP, but as far as I see it this article is nothing but a bragging ground of redundant information and statistics without substantial meaning, which can anyway be easily be accessed on this page.
I am also aware of Category:Times that large groups of Wikipedians supported something which contains a lot of similar articles. I have only briefly looked through them and some display the same redundancy while others are legitimate mentions of unique events, and I think they should be considered individually. This article, however, got to go since it serves no purpose but to document common and regular events. Gaioa (T C L) 09:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, in the age of RfX watchlist notices, this page is meaninglessly indiscriminate. I remember when it was not so, but those days are past. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Would also support marking as historical. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100 support votes used to mean something; now, not so much. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedian cultural history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If redundant to a better presentation at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year, that’s a reason to redirect, not delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but mark historical since I agree it's not really remarkable anymore. Still, it's historically relevant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark as historical. Mendaliv has the solution. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but mark historical, per Mendaliv. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but emphasise the historicist nature of the phenomenon vis á vis the tendential augmentation of the autocharacterisation of the requisite venture: i.e., mark historical. ——SerialNumber54129 12:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but mark historical It's Wiki-History. →StaniStani 06:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's an interesting piece of Wikipedia history and is especially relevant for RfB's which tend to attract fewer voters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 27 July 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.