-12

On my Area 51 proposal for an anti-natalism site (unilaterally closed and now deleted, as I recorded here, Robert Cartaino commented:

This subject is already well-covered by a live Stack Exchange site. We generally do not split off subjects simply to give them their own space.

I'm uncertain about the last sentence. Don't the following websites serve as counter-examples?

  1. Constructed Languages Beta and Language Learning Beta fall under Linguistics.

  2. Computer Science Educators Beta and Theoretical CS under CS?

  3. Quantitative Finance under Economics?

  • 1
    I don't think those necessarily counter his statement since he used the word "generally." – n8te Mar 23 at 1:36
  • 9
    Also, policies on Area 51 have changed a lot over time. Linking to years-old sites doesn't really help your argument at all. We've definitely gotten much more strict on proposals since then. E.g. starting to require an existing community for new proposals only a year ago. – animuson Mar 23 at 1:42
  • 8
    More likely, what he meant is, "That is far too niche of a topic to ever become an active, thriving Q&A site," but he instead tried to be nice and ended up overgeneralizing. – Cody Gray Mar 23 at 2:57
9

I guess the essential thing is whether those things make for good Q&A.

Wishing you were never born does not. And well... you do seem to have a record of backing horses that apparently decided to wander off and munch grass, rather than getting past the starting line judging by your username.

Each of those sub-topics has its own thriving community, or something that makes it unique. People might want to discuss aspects of contructed languages, or learn a organically grown, freerange one. Teaching CS and researching CS can be overlapping but not totally.

Economics... I don't want to pretend to know, but chances are, you'd find that there's aspects of Quantitative Finance unique to that community.

If its unique, and has a strong community that can keep a healthy site going, it has a chance. Some proposals just don't seem to have that X factor, or there may be technical or community reasons not to run the site.

If you're absolutely convinced this is a viable site that the powers that be are making a grave mistake in rejecting - it might be worth showing there's sufficient support and planning before you propose, or if all else fails, running your own with card games and entertainment....

  • 'Wishing you were never born does not.': What if we generalize to a subfield of philosophy, like ethics? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Mar 23 at 3:40
  • 2
    If you're trying to hammer a peg to fit a hole, the peg may be the wrong shape. That said why is it being hammered if it doesn't fit? – Journeyman Geek Mar 23 at 4:02
  • 'Wishing you were never born does not.': I'm uncertain that this describes Antinatalism. ' If you're trying to hammer a peg to fit a hole, the peg may be the wrong shape.' Sorry. I don' tunderstand. – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Mar 23 at 5:05
  • 2
    @Greek-Area51Proposal he's saying if a site (the peg) lacks the necessary means to succeed, there's little point in camouflaging its shortcomings. If it hasn't been accepted (it doesn't fit because it's the wrong shape) why transform it (bang it with a hammer) until it is accepted (fits into the hole). It will look and be so different from the original, it will be unrecognisable. – Mari-Lou A Mar 23 at 12:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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