3

Following-up this other discussion:

Why would I want to "keep track" of all of the questions I have asked as samples elsewhere when I do not have to do that for any other SE site? Questions shouldn't "go away" if/when a proposal is marked inactive.

Marking a proposal inactive and putting it in a different view (one wherein users who hadn't noticed it go inactive could reactivate it with some threshold of activity) rather than being deleted.

The only proposals which should be deleted are those which are blatant duplicates, or ones that have been on the "inactive" panel for, say, 3 or more months. And even then, the questions submitted to the now-defunct proposals should be kept attached to the user's account - perhaps migrated to an "orphaned questions" tab for the individual user so they can reattach/reask them to a better/new proposal if/when the time comes.

2

If proposals are finally deleted due to a continued lack of interest, why highlight them in a special listing where people can seek them out and prod them back into existence? Those tried-and-failed ideas will only provide fodder to close future generations of proposals which may have fresh ideas and renewed energy about how to get those site created.

Area 51 tests the resolve to get a proposal launched. Getting a site started (and making it successful in the long term) is difficult in even the best of circumstances. It takes a lot of hard work and dedication, of which those proposals had none. We're not here to keep proposals with lackluster interest on life support. It's not about beating an idea to death until it finally stumbles across the finish line.

This list of "here are the poor, abandoned proposals" will only foster the Area 51-equivalent of the pity up-vote — only encouraging people to pay an undue and disproportional level of attention to a set of proposal which have already run their course.

Don't keep churning up the same tried-and-failed proposals. They failed for a reason. If you like the idea, but not the proposal, try something new.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1413/fixing-the-deleted-proposals-issue
area51.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-04
117325
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KVBUJNTF7DMBJ2E2YYLCFWRDVT3WQ62J
<urn:uuid:2a471f43-a68c-44e3-a4d6-56fbc067eeda>
2021-01-19T12:01:20Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:KMUIO4GND4LCGXDIF4EFSYJ2D6FJGCE6
<urn:uuid:e07bdb5c-001d-4240-a9c5-c794fdb39455>
https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1413/fixing-the-deleted-proposals-issue
response
<urn:uuid:97c79e6b-177a-4e8f-a777-d6014c5f0e70>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-172.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/