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 (marked as historical). JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size[edit]

This bot-generated list is now 4 years out-of-date. It was originally created and maintained by User:BetacommandBot, but since User:Betacommand was banned indefinitely in April 2008 the list has been manually edited on only 9 occasions since then. Although this list still attracts some traffic (470 page views in the last 30 days), it contains many dubious entries, and the size ranking it purports to show is probably so out-of-date as to render it almost useless. Its usefulness has been questioned before, e.g. November 2008 and August 2010, so it may be better to delete it now. Bahudhara (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as historical – We don't delete pages just because they're out of date. It's not doing any harm. Graham87 09:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - out of date, impossible to keep up with, and marking as historical adds no value to the project. Achowat (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no historical data worth saving here since everything is woefully out of date. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as we can find a way to update it. (I was one of the folks who asked for this in the first place.) Can some sort of bot run through and do it. I will ask someone familiar with bots. I should add that the rationale behind it was a better way at gaging the shortest articles. A big wikiproject which has several thousand articles or more will often have a thousand articles listed as stubs, many of which were listed by bot and not rerated once expanded. Thus this was a easy way of checking what articles that I might be able to expand were short. Also at the other end of the scale, one could instantly see large articles which we might either (a) rework for GA or something or (b) check for 'fluff' that some keen person had added that might need trimming. Thus if we can update it it'll be a great tool. And keeping a historical record in the history is interesting too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a "historical" template, which I think should suffice until it can be updated. I see no reason to delete. InverseHypercube (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and set a bot to the task of keeping it updated. This is the perfect task for a bot. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it shows what is possible and is clearly marked as historical. Hopefully keeping this around will eventually prompt some bot operator to refresh it. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:51, 28 April 2012 (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.