@LSpice: If people give an honest answer yes to the question "Is this homework?", then likely making this trigger rejection is the right thing to do. Though "Is this research-level mathematics?" is different in that mathematicians will likely often hesitate to claim yes, even for quite interesting questions. So it depends.

@j.c.: I think Scott Morrison's text is much too long. To me it seems unlikely that many new users will bother to read it, regardless of how prominently it is displayed. Rather it would just be dismissed like the common lengthy Terms of Service of any other website. This already by native speakers of English, but even more of course by others.

As to a proposal for such an info text, see here.

I'd vote to undelete and reopen if the OP states here the intention to edit and clarify the question. On the other hand, I don't think it makes sense to re-activate an abandoned question.

@WillSawin: As to problems in published lists of open problems -- there are e.g. a couple of questions of mine in the Kourovka Notebook which I posed first on MO.

How do you measure how interesting a problem is? -- Is it the total amount of monetary prizes one can win for a solution, the number of times it is mentioned in the literature, the number of papers which would be "erased" by solving it?

@JoelDavidHamkins: Additional low-quality comments would be unlikely anyway, since commenting requires 50 points.

As you say, certainly asking occasional specific mathematical questions about particular papers on MO is no problem. -- But much more useful would be a searchable and editable database of comments and errata on papers, which would be something entirely different from MO. This could be a separate site or an extension of zbMATH / MathSciNet, or individual publishers could host the comments.

Addendum: Editing a question apparently postpones autodeletion to a certain extent (but not beyond 30 days after the initial posting of the question) -- see here for the exact criteria.

The deleted answer was the accepted one -- that's what I mean.

In general, of course. -- But do you think this holds also for the particular case the question asks about?

Why don't you just do them all in one go, if they anway need to be fixed? -- Is having once 64 posts bumped more of a nuisance than having 14 times 4 or 5 posts bumped?

As far as I know, a question without answers gets auto-deleted 9 days after being put on hold. But given Todd Trimble's comment, this may be not relevant here (moderators can undelete and reopen, if they deem it appropriate).

Just the present state: the question is closed, and there are 3 pending reopen votes and 2 pending delete votes. This means that if 2 more people vote to reopen, your question gets reopened -- but if it happens earlier that one more person votes to delete, your question gets deleted. Since there is no answer, the question will be deleted as well if the reopen votes are not cast within a week from now.

I think reporting any important enough result or new development in mathematics would be fine as well, and at least equally interesting as news about who has died or who has got this-or-that award.

As of now, four of five answers report someone's death -- is this almost the only type of "News of potential interest to the MO community"? I do not doubt that these reports are of interest, in particular the one of today -- but would it perhaps make sense to adjust the question accordingly, as for several months hardly any other news turned up here?