Timeline for Why isn't "no longer relevant" an option for closing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2013 at 0:33 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @YemonChoi: Actually, I think the main application of 'no longer relevant' in the old MO.1 days was toward a situation where a question did begin to attract subpar answers (contrary to Tim's first sentence). The idea being that a question, while maybe serving a useful purpose at one time, is now only attracting crap and should be put to rest, for the good of the site. This seems to me still a valid reason for closing. But not for deleting, as long as there are still some good and worthwhile answers there. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 23:02 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I am not so confident about the claim in your first sentence: there are plenty of people out there who like to write answers down, even if they are not actually answering the question, or even if they are repeating things other people have written. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 21:03 | comment | added | Tim Post Staff | @quid Good point, I expanded a bit to address that. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 21:02 | history | edited | Tim PostStaff | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 343 characters in body
|
| Sep 3, 2013 at 20:37 | comment | added | user9072 | This is a good answer. But a practical point. Before being able to delete it, however, most of us need to put it 'on hold'. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 15:33 | history | answered | Tim PostStaff | CC BY-SA 3.0 |