I don't care if members (apparently intending to be helpful) give me 101 down votes and the moderators boot me off the site forever. I'm not deleting this meta. It may be more productive to write the owners of the site directly on paper and mail it registered mail with return receipt. I have PDFs demonstrating the counter-productivity of this issue on multiple occasions involving completely different technical areas and completely different "trusted" members. Deletion of questions when answers have already satisfied the need is ubiquitous and far too frequent.

@NathanTuggy, I'm not concerned with the technical merits of the question. I'm concerned with the actual wastefulness of a system of rules that allow veterans to go deleting the work of others on technical merits instead of considering the bigger picture of whether some reasonable Q&A may be healthy to SO and to the development community and how to facilitate contribution improvement and augment clarity by being positive and encouraging rather than deleting. (It reminds me of sys admins deleting small files in /tmp because the disk is full without telling anyone they are about to do that.)

-1 for the usefulness of this question (as it has been catered to apply to a very very specific set of circumstances, I can not see how this would be very helpful to anyone, really.)

Its also hard to see why it matters what person does what.. perhaps you should clarify your question, rather than cater to a very specific set of actions by a very specific order of users.

Your edits do not adequately convince me that you do know how the editorial tools work, on here. For example, you still have not clarified if 'the user who placed the question on hold' was in fact a moderator, or a regular user. As pointed out, a regular user can not place questions on hold, by themselves. Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but I feel the question leaves much to be desired for preventing misinterpretation.

@JourneymanGeek, I'm very happy you were reluctant, because that would have been exactly the kind of that's-not-the-way-we-do-it, establishment, status-quo-or-bust thinking that prompted the meta question. Perhaps this title is correct and the other 150 thousand or whatever is wrong. Isn't title case specifically designed for a title? Are all the books, newspapers, web pages, and billboards in the world wrong and SO is right?

Also, you make outrageous claims of evidence you have pooled together, but I do not see any reference to such evidence. If it helps your point, link it. Just stating that you have documents proving your case does not really help your case..

@JourneymanGeek, I have made changes including your suggestion. Douglas, I am confused by your understanding of "how we do things". Could you provide any clarification for your assumptions? If we feel we can edit a question (or answer) to improve upon its general quality, we do (or we can). Issues of grammar, punctuation and general understanding are definitely areas that can be improved.

@Gnemlock, thank you engaging and not assuming I'm cracked. :) I agree my claims are outrageous, but that is only because a collection of work was deleted, and it wasn't the first time I've experienced hasty deletions. The ARE an outrage. I deliberately set out here to be pointed but NOT post the link, simply because I wanted to understand and perhaps get some people thinking rather than implicate anyone ...

As you can see. here we do not make claim to correct use of title case. We simply agree that we should not use it, here.

@DouglasDaseeco, to clarify, does this all happen on Stack Overflow, or does this happen on other sites?

@Gnemlock, that is an excellent question & completely legitimate. It has two forks: (1) Does Douglas Daseeco like work that he and his colleagues contribute deleted by those not in the conversation? I'd suggest applying the Golden Rule to answer that Q. (2) Does Douglas Daseeco have an issue with the entire Internet or is he normally fine with rules? From the time I built my first web site for United Technologies Research Center on ARPANET, prior to the WWW, no one to my knowledge has claimed that I am particularly critical of the fact that documents can be deleted from an HTTP server.

@Memor-X, thank you for the clarification. I am relieved that there is normally a democratic process involved in the closing. That still leaves me with why the one person said that the other four were convinced that the edits sufficed to comply with the rules but the others were not. It also leaves me with the question of why new people with even less familiarity with the Q&A that had occurred are voting, rather than those who originally may have supported the hold. Can you explain more or refer me to a document that explains?

@DouglasDaseeco, the golden rule works both ways. I, myself, would be alright with users deleting my content if they feel that that content was severely lacking in quality (I recent had this happen; although not at this site). While it is impossible to judge said quality (based off both your refusal to link the original content and the fact that it has now been deleted for under 10k rep users), but if this post is anything to go in, I feel most users will assume your answer was of low quality. Twice, now, you have refused to answer direct questions I have asked.

It seems this entire question involves issues in understanding how Stack Exchange operates. It does not matter how long you have been around on the Internet or ARPANET or whatever. This is Stack Exchange. We follow the policy as set out for Stack Exchange. I'll ask again.. are you refering to events that happen on Stack Overflow, or events that happen on other sites? If the later, what other sites?

@DouglasDaseeco new users can't. while the rep amount may be different on some sites voting to close and reopen is an unlockable privilege. new users won't have the reputation to unlock this as such they can't.

note that this has nothing to do with knowledge in regards to any particular technology and it's very possible that the user who disagreed with what triage said (i claim not to know how that review queue works.....still confuses me) still was able to recognize that the question was too broad based off their experience on Stack Overflow in general

We follow community policy. It is fairly easy to see how this works, with a bit of effort. Here is the page on voting to close or reopn. This simple page explains the concepts you seem to mostly ask about, very specific cases should be brought up on the relevant meta

Yes. This is better.

Chat.

The question, if I pull out the details, collapses to, why can third parties delete content that the people who have contributed Q&A find value in without giving them a reasonably governed window to do whatever to comply with SO sensibilities?

.. they can't

users have tried explaining it to you. Either you dont understand, or your not making an effort to read the additional material

we are not here to educate every user on the right use of Stack Exchange

a group of users can vote to say "we dont think this answers the question", for example

and if it doesnt, it will be deleted.

if a question is closed, users can flag the question for review to be reopened. The fact that it has been deleted tells me that nobody thought it was worth reopening the question for so long that it was deleted.

Alternativley, the original asker can chose to delete their question, but given your complete lack of compliance to answer simple requests for additional information or clarification, we can only assume that the question was of low quality, and enough users voted that removal was a better fit in regards to "quality control"

This is the important part you need to consider. It does not matter how long you have been around. It does not matter if you invented the Internet, you do not own the Internet. Once you publish your content, it is not necessarily yours.

I say this to clarify any misinterpretation you have; but any content you publish to Stack Exchange becomes common use license. You give Stack Exchange license to do whatever they want with it (in this case, let a bunch of other users agree to delete it). You should still receive credit if another user credits the answer in any work, but it is completely within the rights of the Stack Exchange network to edit or delete any or all of your questions or answers.

I'm going to point out another solution here, but you need to think very carefully about it. You seem to be upset about the fact that an answer you posted was deleted. The original question was not answered by your answer - a fact you clarify by telling us that the original question as too broad, so you answered the assumed "fixed up" version of the answer.

If you really think this answer is good quality, ask the specific question you answered, and self answer. That said, unless this really is a good quality post, do not be surprised if your met with more downvoting.

Not really upset, just questioning how involved I want to be in SO. I've read all sorts of things previously and from today's meta-responses, but I still see the need for a window of opportunity for people interested in a particular line of Q&A to make it right before people who may not have the same interests delete it for what they think are good reasons but may not (to those interested in the material) be.

No one has said, "Okay, you may have a point." Here's a thought.

Perhaps all those who attain high rep in SO do so because they are mainstream developers and answer the kinds of questions other mainstream developers ask and vote up. Statistically, this makes sense, doesn't it?

Niche work might get deleted due to confusion, not caused by the Q&A, but by the novice of the experts in niche topics.

Furthermore, no one addressed my greater interest yet.

A newbie was welcomed, got their answer, everyone was happy, and people who had nothing to do with the conversation deleted the thread without providing a window of time to correct whatever was still wrong (after diligent edits) or any advise to direct such actions (for which there were no time).

No one has convinced me that I'm off base here.

I'm not claiming that I should have control over SO. I'm claiming that this particular sequence of events occurs and is not productive to the vision of its creators or the community the site serves.