8 replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/

An interesting point. This issue was debated on meta.SO: Why is it possible to vote for deletion/undeletion more than once? It seems that SE developers somehow neglected to implement the same check that exists for close/open votes, and they do not (yet) consider this a problem worth fixing. They do appear to be open to revisiting this issue if delete/undelete wars become a noticeable problem. One argument from the SE side is that if an undeleted question does not get reopened, then it does not deserve to stay undeleted; they do not want sites to be depositories of questions that can't be answered. From this point of view, the fact that deletion is facilitated by allowing same voters to delete again is somewhat by-design.

### Data

Not counting the question that prompted this thread, there are only 57 questions that were undeleted more than once and remain undeleted. I went through their revision histories: in the majority of cases it was the question owner playing with the delete button to see what it does. In the 3.5 years of the site, there have been only four tug-of-wars over deletions that resulted in undelete winning (again, excluding kalle-numbers):

There could be as many (or more) cycles that ended in the deleted state; they are not found in SEDE. I can't say that I care about those. My point of view is close to that of Shog9 (as is often the case): if a question does not have enough support to stay open, I see no problem with it being deleted, by whatever means. I'd like to see more closed questions being deleted, not fewer. Hence I would not support a social norm that inhibits deletions.

If I were to suggest a social norm regarding undeletions, it would be: vote to undelete only if either

• you believe the question should be reopened in its current state; or
• you are going to improve the question so it will have a chance of being reopened.

In other words, do not undelete just so that "it's there". There are other ways to preserve content: Wayback MachineWayback Machine already does this for kalle-numbers, and 10K users can repost the deleted content outside of SE as they see fit. (In the public folder of a Dropbox account, for example.) The question owner can do the same. The point of deletion is not that the thread does not deserve to exist in the world, but that it does not fit the high signal/noise ratio model of SE.

### Delete/undelete wars

As shown above, those are rare. I think it's best to deal with them on ad hoc basis, and not try to build a norm about something so abnormal. If the delete/undelete war over this particular question draws enough attention to indeed become a distraction, a mod can lock the post for a long period (say, a year) or even indefinitely. I think we are not there yet. It takes a lot to become a distraction on a site with 300-400 new questions dropping in every day.

An interesting point. This issue was debated on meta.SO: Why is it possible to vote for deletion/undeletion more than once? It seems that SE developers somehow neglected to implement the same check that exists for close/open votes, and they do not (yet) consider this a problem worth fixing. They do appear to be open to revisiting this issue if delete/undelete wars become a noticeable problem. One argument from the SE side is that if an undeleted question does not get reopened, then it does not deserve to stay undeleted; they do not want sites to be depositories of questions that can't be answered. From this point of view, the fact that deletion is facilitated by allowing same voters to delete again is somewhat by-design.

### Data

Not counting the question that prompted this thread, there are only 57 questions that were undeleted more than once and remain undeleted. I went through their revision histories: in the majority of cases it was the question owner playing with the delete button to see what it does. In the 3.5 years of the site, there have been only four tug-of-wars over deletions that resulted in undelete winning (again, excluding kalle-numbers):

There could be as many (or more) cycles that ended in the deleted state; they are not found in SEDE. I can't say that I care about those. My point of view is close to that of Shog9 (as is often the case): if a question does not have enough support to stay open, I see no problem with it being deleted, by whatever means. I'd like to see more closed questions being deleted, not fewer. Hence I would not support a social norm that inhibits deletions.

If I were to suggest a social norm regarding undeletions, it would be: vote to undelete only if either

• you believe the question should be reopened in its current state; or
• you are going to improve the question so it will have a chance of being reopened.

In other words, do not undelete just so that "it's there". There are other ways to preserve content: Wayback Machine already does this for kalle-numbers, and 10K users can repost the deleted content outside of SE as they see fit. (In the public folder of a Dropbox account, for example.) The question owner can do the same. The point of deletion is not that the thread does not deserve to exist in the world, but that it does not fit the high signal/noise ratio model of SE.

### Delete/undelete wars

As shown above, those are rare. I think it's best to deal with them on ad hoc basis, and not try to build a norm about something so abnormal. If the delete/undelete war over this particular question draws enough attention to indeed become a distraction, a mod can lock the post for a long period (say, a year) or even indefinitely. I think we are not there yet. It takes a lot to become a distraction on a site with 300-400 new questions dropping in every day.

An interesting point. This issue was debated on meta.SO: Why is it possible to vote for deletion/undeletion more than once? It seems that SE developers somehow neglected to implement the same check that exists for close/open votes, and they do not (yet) consider this a problem worth fixing. They do appear to be open to revisiting this issue if delete/undelete wars become a noticeable problem. One argument from the SE side is that if an undeleted question does not get reopened, then it does not deserve to stay undeleted; they do not want sites to be depositories of questions that can't be answered. From this point of view, the fact that deletion is facilitated by allowing same voters to delete again is somewhat by-design.

### Data

Not counting the question that prompted this thread, there are only 57 questions that were undeleted more than once and remain undeleted. I went through their revision histories: in the majority of cases it was the question owner playing with the delete button to see what it does. In the 3.5 years of the site, there have been only four tug-of-wars over deletions that resulted in undelete winning (again, excluding kalle-numbers):

There could be as many (or more) cycles that ended in the deleted state; they are not found in SEDE. I can't say that I care about those. My point of view is close to that of Shog9 (as is often the case): if a question does not have enough support to stay open, I see no problem with it being deleted, by whatever means. I'd like to see more closed questions being deleted, not fewer. Hence I would not support a social norm that inhibits deletions.

If I were to suggest a social norm regarding undeletions, it would be: vote to undelete only if either

• you believe the question should be reopened in its current state; or
• you are going to improve the question so it will have a chance of being reopened.

In other words, do not undelete just so that "it's there". There are other ways to preserve content: Wayback Machine already does this for kalle-numbers, and 10K users can repost the deleted content outside of SE as they see fit. (In the public folder of a Dropbox account, for example.) The question owner can do the same. The point of deletion is not that the thread does not deserve to exist in the world, but that it does not fit the high signal/noise ratio model of SE.

### Delete/undelete wars

As shown above, those are rare. I think it's best to deal with them on ad hoc basis, and not try to build a norm about something so abnormal. If the delete/undelete war over this particular question draws enough attention to indeed become a distraction, a mod can lock the post for a long period (say, a year) or even indefinitely. I think we are not there yet. It takes a lot to become a distraction on a site with 300-400 new questions dropping in every day.

7 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/

An interesting point. This issue was debated on meta.SO: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/9431Why is it possible to vote for deletion/undeletion more than once? It seems that SE developers somehow neglected to implement the same check that exists for close/open votes, and they do not (yet) consider this a problem worth fixing. They do appear to be open to revisiting this issue if delete/undelete wars become a noticeable problem. One argument from the SE side is that if an undeleted question does not get reopened, then it does not deserve to stay undeleted; they do not want sites to be depositories of questions that can't be answered. From this point of view, the fact that deletion is facilitated by allowing same voters to delete again is somewhat by-design.

### Data

Not counting the question that prompted this thread, there are only 57 questions that were undeleted more than once and remain undeleted. I went through their revision histories: in the majority of cases it was the question owner playing with the delete button to see what it does. In the 3.5 years of the site, there have been only four tug-of-wars over deletions that resulted in undelete winning (again, excluding kalle-numbers):

There could be as many (or more) cycles that ended in the deleted state; they are not found in SEDE. I can't say that I care about those. My point of view is close to that of Shog9 (as is often the case): if a question does not have enough support to stay open, I see no problem with it being deleted, by whatever means. I'd like to see more closed questions being deleted, not fewer. Hence I would not support a social norm that inhibits deletions.

If I were to suggest a social norm regarding undeletions, it would be: vote to undelete only if either

• you believe the question should be reopened in its current state; or
• you are going to improve the question so it will have a chance of being reopened.

In other words, do not undelete just so that "it's there". There are other ways to preserve content: Wayback Machine already does this for kalle-numbers, and 10K users can repost the deleted content outside of SE as they see fit. (In the public folder of a Dropbox account, for example.) The question owner can do the same. The point of deletion is not that the thread does not deserve to exist in the world, but that it does not fit the high signal/noise ratio model of SE.

### Delete/undelete wars

As shown above, those are rare. I think it's best to deal with them on ad hoc basis, and not try to build a norm about something so abnormal. If the delete/undelete war over this particular question draws enough attention to indeed become a distraction, a mod can lock the post for a long period (say, a year) or even indefinitely. I think we are not there yet. It takes a lot to become a distraction on a site with 300-400 new questions dropping in every day.

An interesting point. This issue was debated on meta.SO: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/9431 It seems that SE developers somehow neglected to implement the same check that exists for close/open votes, and they do not (yet) consider this a problem worth fixing. They do appear to be open to revisiting this issue if delete/undelete wars become a noticeable problem. One argument from the SE side is that if an undeleted question does not get reopened, then it does not deserve to stay undeleted; they do not want sites to be depositories of questions that can't be answered. From this point of view, the fact that deletion is facilitated by allowing same voters to delete again is somewhat by-design.

### Data

Not counting the question that prompted this thread, there are only 57 questions that were undeleted more than once and remain undeleted. I went through their revision histories: in the majority of cases it was the question owner playing with the delete button to see what it does. In the 3.5 years of the site, there have been only four tug-of-wars over deletions that resulted in undelete winning (again, excluding kalle-numbers):

There could be as many (or more) cycles that ended in the deleted state; they are not found in SEDE. I can't say that I care about those. My point of view is close to that of Shog9 (as is often the case): if a question does not have enough support to stay open, I see no problem with it being deleted, by whatever means. I'd like to see more closed questions being deleted, not fewer. Hence I would not support a social norm that inhibits deletions.

If I were to suggest a social norm regarding undeletions, it would be: vote to undelete only if either

• you believe the question should be reopened in its current state; or
• you are going to improve the question so it will have a chance of being reopened.

In other words, do not undelete just so that "it's there". There are other ways to preserve content: Wayback Machine already does this for kalle-numbers, and 10K users can repost the deleted content outside of SE as they see fit. (In the public folder of a Dropbox account, for example.) The question owner can do the same. The point of deletion is not that the thread does not deserve to exist in the world, but that it does not fit the high signal/noise ratio model of SE.

### Delete/undelete wars

As shown above, those are rare. I think it's best to deal with them on ad hoc basis, and not try to build a norm about something so abnormal. If the delete/undelete war over this particular question draws enough attention to indeed become a distraction, a mod can lock the post for a long period (say, a year) or even indefinitely. I think we are not there yet. It takes a lot to become a distraction on a site with 300-400 new questions dropping in every day.

An interesting point. This issue was debated on meta.SO: Why is it possible to vote for deletion/undeletion more than once? It seems that SE developers somehow neglected to implement the same check that exists for close/open votes, and they do not (yet) consider this a problem worth fixing. They do appear to be open to revisiting this issue if delete/undelete wars become a noticeable problem. One argument from the SE side is that if an undeleted question does not get reopened, then it does not deserve to stay undeleted; they do not want sites to be depositories of questions that can't be answered. From this point of view, the fact that deletion is facilitated by allowing same voters to delete again is somewhat by-design.

### Data

Not counting the question that prompted this thread, there are only 57 questions that were undeleted more than once and remain undeleted. I went through their revision histories: in the majority of cases it was the question owner playing with the delete button to see what it does. In the 3.5 years of the site, there have been only four tug-of-wars over deletions that resulted in undelete winning (again, excluding kalle-numbers):

There could be as many (or more) cycles that ended in the deleted state; they are not found in SEDE. I can't say that I care about those. My point of view is close to that of Shog9 (as is often the case): if a question does not have enough support to stay open, I see no problem with it being deleted, by whatever means. I'd like to see more closed questions being deleted, not fewer. Hence I would not support a social norm that inhibits deletions.

If I were to suggest a social norm regarding undeletions, it would be: vote to undelete only if either

• you believe the question should be reopened in its current state; or
• you are going to improve the question so it will have a chance of being reopened.

In other words, do not undelete just so that "it's there". There are other ways to preserve content: Wayback Machine already does this for kalle-numbers, and 10K users can repost the deleted content outside of SE as they see fit. (In the public folder of a Dropbox account, for example.) The question owner can do the same. The point of deletion is not that the thread does not deserve to exist in the world, but that it does not fit the high signal/noise ratio model of SE.

### Delete/undelete wars

As shown above, those are rare. I think it's best to deal with them on ad hoc basis, and not try to build a norm about something so abnormal. If the delete/undelete war over this particular question draws enough attention to indeed become a distraction, a mod can lock the post for a long period (say, a year) or even indefinitely. I think we are not there yet. It takes a lot to become a distraction on a site with 300-400 new questions dropping in every day.

An interesting point. This issue was debated on meta.SO: Why is it possible to vote for deletionhttp:/undeletion more than once?/meta.stackexchange.com/q/9431 It seems that SE developers somehow neglected to implement the same check that exists for close/open votes, and they do not (yet) consider this a problem worth fixing. They do appear to be open to revisiting this issue if delete/undelete wars become a noticeable problem. One argument from the SE side is that if an undeleted question does not get reopened, then it does not deserve to stay undeleted; they do not want sites to be depositories of questions that can't be answered. From this point of view, the fact that deletion is facilitated by allowing same voters to delete again is somewhat by-design.

### Data

Not counting the question that prompted this thread, there are only 57 questions57 questions that were undeleted more than once and remain undeleted. I went through their revision histories: in the majority of cases it was the question owner playing with the delete button to see what it does. In the 3.5 years of the site, there have been only four tug-of-wars over deletions that resulted in undelete winning (again, excluding kalle-numbers):

There could be as many (or more) cycles that ended in the deleted state; they are not found in SEDE. I can't say that I care about those. My point of view is close to that of Shog9 (as is often the case): if a question does not have enough support to stay open, I see no problem with it being deleted, by whatever means. I'd like to see more closed questions being deleted, not fewer. Hence I would not support a social norm that inhibits deletions.

If I were to suggest a social norm regarding undeletions, it would be: vote to undelete only if either

• you believe the question should be reopened in its current state; or
• you are going to improve the question so it will have a chance of being reopened.

In other words, do not undelete just so that "it's there". There are other ways to preserve content: Wayback MachineWayback Machine already does this for kalle-numbers, and 10K users can repost the deleted content outside of SE as they see fit. (In the public folder of a Dropbox account, for example.) The question owner can do the same. The point of deletion is not that the thread does not deserve to exist in the world, but that it does not fit the high signal/noise ratio model of SE.

### Delete/undelete wars

As shown above, those are rare. I think it's best to deal with them on ad hoc basis, and not try to build a norm about something so abnormal. If the delete/undelete war over this particular question draws enough attention to indeed become a distraction, a mod can lock the post for a long period (say, a year) or even indefinitely. I think we are not there yet. It takes a lot to become a distraction on a site with 300-400 new questions dropping in every day.

An interesting point. This issue was debated on meta.SO: Why is it possible to vote for deletion/undeletion more than once? It seems that SE developers somehow neglected to implement the same check that exists for close/open votes, and they do not (yet) consider this a problem worth fixing. They do appear to be open to revisiting this issue if delete/undelete wars become a noticeable problem. One argument from the SE side is that if an undeleted question does not get reopened, then it does not deserve to stay undeleted; they do not want sites to be depositories of questions that can't be answered. From this point of view, the fact that deletion is facilitated by allowing same voters to delete again is somewhat by-design.

### Data

Not counting the question that prompted this thread, there are only 57 questions that were undeleted more than once and remain undeleted. I went through their revision histories: in the majority of cases it was the question owner playing with the delete button to see what it does. In the 3.5 years of the site, there have been only four tug-of-wars over deletions that resulted in undelete winning (again, excluding kalle-numbers):

There could be as many (or more) cycles that ended in the deleted state; they are not found in SEDE. I can't say that I care about those. My point of view is close to that of Shog9 (as is often the case): if a question does not have enough support to stay open, I see no problem with it being deleted, by whatever means. I'd like to see more closed questions being deleted, not fewer. Hence I would not support a social norm that inhibits deletions.

If I were to suggest a social norm regarding undeletions, it would be: vote to undelete only if either

• you believe the question should be reopened in its current state; or
• you are going to improve the question so it will have a chance of being reopened.

In other words, do not undelete just so that "it's there". There are other ways to preserve content: Wayback Machine already does this for kalle-numbers, and 10K users can repost the deleted content outside of SE as they see fit. (In the public folder of a Dropbox account, for example.) The question owner can do the same. The point of deletion is not that the thread does not deserve to exist in the world, but that it does not fit the high signal/noise ratio model of SE.

### Delete/undelete wars

As shown above, those are rare. I think it's best to deal with them on ad hoc basis, and not try to build a norm about something so abnormal. If the delete/undelete war over this particular question draws enough attention to indeed become a distraction, a mod can lock the post for a long period (say, a year) or even indefinitely. I think we are not there yet. It takes a lot to become a distraction on a site with 300-400 new questions dropping in every day.

An interesting point. This issue was debated on meta.SO: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/9431 It seems that SE developers somehow neglected to implement the same check that exists for close/open votes, and they do not (yet) consider this a problem worth fixing. They do appear to be open to revisiting this issue if delete/undelete wars become a noticeable problem. One argument from the SE side is that if an undeleted question does not get reopened, then it does not deserve to stay undeleted; they do not want sites to be depositories of questions that can't be answered. From this point of view, the fact that deletion is facilitated by allowing same voters to delete again is somewhat by-design.

### Data

Not counting the question that prompted this thread, there are only 57 questions that were undeleted more than once and remain undeleted. I went through their revision histories: in the majority of cases it was the question owner playing with the delete button to see what it does. In the 3.5 years of the site, there have been only four tug-of-wars over deletions that resulted in undelete winning (again, excluding kalle-numbers):

There could be as many (or more) cycles that ended in the deleted state; they are not found in SEDE. I can't say that I care about those. My point of view is close to that of Shog9 (as is often the case): if a question does not have enough support to stay open, I see no problem with it being deleted, by whatever means. I'd like to see more closed questions being deleted, not fewer. Hence I would not support a social norm that inhibits deletions.

If I were to suggest a social norm regarding undeletions, it would be: vote to undelete only if either

• you believe the question should be reopened in its current state; or
• you are going to improve the question so it will have a chance of being reopened.

In other words, do not undelete just so that "it's there". There are other ways to preserve content: Wayback Machine already does this for kalle-numbers, and 10K users can repost the deleted content outside of SE as they see fit. (In the public folder of a Dropbox account, for example.) The question owner can do the same. The point of deletion is not that the thread does not deserve to exist in the world, but that it does not fit the high signal/noise ratio model of SE.

### Delete/undelete wars

As shown above, those are rare. I think it's best to deal with them on ad hoc basis, and not try to build a norm about something so abnormal. If the delete/undelete war over this particular question draws enough attention to indeed become a distraction, a mod can lock the post for a long period (say, a year) or even indefinitely. I think we are not there yet. It takes a lot to become a distraction on a site with 300-400 new questions dropping in every day.