This question had a lot of upvotes and answers--including one I wrote--and was recently removed:


Is there a way to get more details on why?

  • 6
    I assume because it's pretty much a textbook not constructive recommendation/shopping question.
    – Bart
    Feb 26 '13 at 18:38
  • 10
    It was a broken window. That's a classic shopping question with no single right answer, which means it doesn't fit the SO model. Although it was closed, it was still a bad example for what should be asked here. Feb 26 '13 at 18:39
  • I asked the same question to the mail address far down on the removed question page, they said this was exactly the place to ask.
    – antonj
    Feb 26 '13 at 18:44
  • You're referring to your Meta question now? If so, then yes. Your question is perfectly appropriate here.
    – Bart
    Feb 26 '13 at 18:45
  • Yes I'm referring to the meta question :)
    – antonj
    Feb 26 '13 at 18:46
  • 2
    I've removed the historical lock, the voting on this question regarding it is inconclusive, and the number of views is frankly small. And it's a horrible question with little value that isn't provided through a simple Google search. It's undeleted though, so the content is still there.
    – casperOne
    Feb 26 '13 at 19:27
  • You should have mentioned that you Answered the question (obvious once clicking). Skin in the game is not a valid reason to keep a question around.
    – user7116
    Feb 26 '13 at 20:28
  • @casperOne The voting on the question may be inconclusive, but the voting on the answers is not. Feb 26 '13 at 21:37
  • Removed the historical-lock tag; this question isn't asking that, it was an outcome of the conversation which a) isn't the case now and b) isn't being requested.
    – casperOne
    Feb 26 '13 at 21:52
  • @sixlettervariables I did not say I wanted the question to be reopened. I was just curious about why it was deleted, the exact reasons was not specified on the page that remained after deletion, it just said something like "Deleted for moderation reasons"
    – antonj
    Feb 26 '13 at 22:51

This question was 'ok' when it was first posted, but these days these types of questions are not allowed on Stack Overflow.

Due to the number of inbound links on the question, I'm undeleting it and placing a Historical Significance lock on it. Thanks for bringing this up.

  • 3
    So... content that might be important link-wise can get undeleted if someone happens to discover their rep loss and comes complain about it. Everything else goes down the drain. This system is so horribly broken.... (Not your fault George, making an observation about the way things are set up)
    – Pekka
    Feb 26 '13 at 19:05
  • @Pekka웃 To be fair, changes were already made that limit reputation loss to questions that are less than 60 days old; so complaining on that basis is a non-issue. I look at four things when deciding whether or not to delete it: quality of content, views, number of favorites, and number of inbound links. Feb 26 '13 at 19:09
  • 2
    yeah. I'm not complaining about the undeletion, just about the way it's set up which seems dumb. Undeletion is completely down to chance (of someone noticing)
    – Pekka
    Feb 26 '13 at 19:11
  • @Pekka웃 Yea, it is. I wouldn't have even realized it had happened had there not been a meta question. I don't know if the Review queue has a "recently highly voted and deleted" tab. Feb 26 '13 at 19:17
  • I've removed the historical lock, the voting on this question regarding it is inconclusive, and the number of views is frankly small. And it's a horrible question with little value that isn't provided through a simple Google search. It's undeleted though, so the content is still there.
    – casperOne
    Feb 26 '13 at 19:28
  • 1
    Not only is it up to chance what happens, it also wastes people's time when trying to clean out old low-quality posts. If not even 10 delete votes is enough on some posts, we should have a higher limit, or a notice that some post cannot be deleted anyway. 75 favorites? 100+ upvotes? 42 links? 3+ years old? All of the above?
    – Bo Persson
    Feb 26 '13 at 20:06
  • @casperOne You'll note that I never mention 'votes' as a reason to keep a question around. I mention 'content', 'views' 'favorites' and 'inbound links'. There are 4 pages of Google results for that question. If the alternative to deletion is historical locking, then the question should be locked. If you think it can be better worded to attract better searching, then go ahead and improve it and relock it. As it stands, it has useful information that should stay around, even though questions like it aren't welcome anymore. Feb 26 '13 at 20:29
  • 2
    @BoPersson Yes, up to chance, but we cheapen the value of historical locks with every one that we issue. I firmly believe that this question is not "a pillar of the Internet" (usually one of the if not the only criteria required). If the community disagrees with voting on this meta post or another mod decides to issue the lock, then so be it, but at some point, we have to realize that historical locks are not meant to be permanent, and naturally degrade over time. This question, IMO is already severely degraded.
    – casperOne
    Feb 26 '13 at 21:51
  • So they've already rolled out showing referral links to SO
    – random
    Feb 26 '13 at 23:45

It was a question leftover from the early vestiges of StackOverflow official public launch. Over time, policies, procedures, and feelings towards what right looks like has changed to make the site better overall and to encourage better content. While the question was locked for sometime and probably could have remained open for archival purposes, it was voted by the community that it should be recommended for deletion and thus that was made so. It could be undeleted but that would have to be overturned by a moderator, which it looks like George Stocker did.


If you're cargo culting the rules, then this is equivalent to a "what's a good development language" style question and should be deleted.

But - it's useful. I just found it useful, and because of the current state of HTTP getters, it's never really going to be controversial.

At some point, someone's going to realise that there's little difference between a block of code to do something and a small tool to do something.

  • More accurately it's actually a request for a tool, which is off topic point 5 at the moment! Jan 4 '14 at 12:23
  • 2
    tool, framework, library, algorithm, block of code. It's pretty hard to draw a line saying where one starts and another finishes. I understand the rules here, but if you're in a situation where there is no spam or flaming on the answer, then this rule is overly broad.
    – seanyboy
    Jan 4 '14 at 14:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .