I have asked a bunch of questions, and as most of them rate as fairly ordinary, not a great boost of question rep abounding at this time. There happens to be a shocker on Stack Overflow from way back (7-8 years), which has been deleted by me at least 4 years ago, yet to this day continues to bring the question limit into play.
As the question limit amounts to a lifetime ban, the cure for that is either expurgation or a well-received question. One can post a perfectly reasonable question and answer, but if it doesn't help anyone, why should they vote on it? Why not instead use a question that is not poorly received, in that it ticks all the boxes in How Do I ask a Good Question?
Further, as the deleted question is not new, the bookmarked URL is now lost, which adds an extra encumbrance factor on the dark past. It may eventuate that Stack Overflow would want to archive old threads, as do many other sites e.g. this one with Microsoft, although those threads contained a mixture of questions well received and not.
Are the experiences of other users relating to question limits enough cause to open a discussion as to whether a moderator should be able to use a time metric in dealing with a request for the permanent erasure (or burninate!?) of an old useless question, thus creating a small buffer in the users'question limits?