This question perhaps can be locked and / or deleted. Being locked prevents other from answering but if one was early enough on can have a answer. Locking prevent additional editing of the answer also, when other views cannot be represented. In which case playing field should be level.

Also putting on hold ideally will work best before there are no other responses (answers). When there are responses perhaps an alternative course of action may be better.

The answer also looks poor quality and also even not an answer (at least how I see it) in the context of the current site.


"Spam" means an unsolicited commercial post, i.e. an advertisement for something (e.g. an advertisement for a web site, a product, service, book, blog). IMO the answer looks concise but not spammy.

Locking it would prevent the user's improving the question. The ideal cycle is:

  • User posts an impossible question
  • Question is "put on hold"
  • User (or someone else) edits/improves the question
  • Question is reopened

You seem to be arguing that questions should never be closed -- that if they're closed then they should be deleted. But a Stack Exchange will normally have some closed questions, closed isn't an abhorrent status -- there are currently about 120 closed questions on the site (only about half of which are closed because they're duplicate).

When I asked about this question that was because someone had flagged it as "rude or abusive" -- if something is rude or abusive then I think it's right to delete it from the site, even if it's not on the front page.

So I'm inclined to let the question be; someone may improve it (or, who knows, a bunch of people will vote to reopen it), or with the passage of time it will drop off the front page harmlessly.


Best to do nothing. Let it be and see what happens.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .