Undelete and historically lock question 913055: Troubleshooting a physically damaged (kicked) desktop computer

Question

Question 913055, "I literally kicked my computer. Analysis and to do list for this situation?" (10k only), was deleted by a moderator after being closed as too broad.

While the question is certainly too broad, it and its answers received a substantial number of views and upvotes prior to being deleted, and the answers contain a significant amount of useful content. As such, I'd like to see the question undeleted and historically locked instead.

For the benefit of users with less than 10,000 reputation, the text of the question (credit Hojin Cho) is as follows:

I, about an hour ago, accidently kicked my PC. It wasn't that strong, but the impact shook the hull a little with sound, and the computer shut down immediately. I tried to turn it back on, but it won't. I think I heard some vague noise when I pushed the power button. I tried 3-4 times to turn it back on before I realised that this could damage my hardware further.

I have 2 hard disks, 1 SSD, a graphic card with a motherboard equipped with two memories. One power supply is equipped to power it.

I don't expect anybody can give correct diagnosis with information above, but here are the questions that I think that can be answered generally:

1. Which part of computer could go wrong in this situation? In other words, which of the list above should be checked even after restoration, and which are safe in this situation?

2. I suspect failure of power supply. What should I do to check its functionality without damaging parts any further?

Answer 1

I find myself with a distinct lack of 10K-itude, so I'll have to go on what bwDraco says of the answers. Let's look at the guidelines for historical locking.

A historical lock preserves older content that was very popular when it was originally posted, but is now off-topic or otherwise out of scope for the site it is posted on.

It appears from this question that the question in question was indeed quite popular. It was also too broad, but was always so.

Questions can be historically locked when:

1. The post is Off-Topic or Not Constructive, and
2. The post is stellar, in spite of its off-topic nature, and
3. There are a large number of views, upvotes and inbound links on the post, and
4. The post is contentious; i.e. it has been closed and reopened at least once, or deleted and undeleted at least once

The question was indeed not a good fit for the site, given its broad nature. Condition 1 passed. Given the fact that it received boatloads of upvotes and views - and, more importantly, it got great answers - it could be considered stellar, and it would be a shame to hide the knowledge therein from Googlers. Conditions 2 and 3 passed. That last condition is tricky: it appears from this bwDraco's description that it was unambiguously recognized as unacceptable and disposed of without dispute.

Let's make sure that we're not violating the "do not" guidelines for historical locking:

Questions should not be historically locked if they:

1. Are being actively maintained, or
2. Have little or no redeeming value.

The post is certainly not being actively maintained; it's deleted. Condition 1 passed. Though the question itself may not be too useful, the answers are. Again, deleting good content (especially content that has attracted so many views) that was in response to a bad question would be a shame. Condition 2 passed.

Except for not being contentious, the post fits all the guidelines for historical locks. I would argue that we should undelete and lock it so as to simultaneously preserve the knowledge and make it clear that we don't accept such questions.

Answer 2

Historical locking is meant for questions that, in hindsight, should never have been asked. Questions that, due to topic or format, have problems that are impossible to correct. The lock renders them all but immutable, fixed in time, standing like the grave markers on some long-ago battlefield as a record of a site's past.

Historical locking is not a stand-in for actually fixing problems.

If you see a terrible question attracting good answers... Then you're seeing a bit of sand generating a pearl. That's great! Folks love pearls. But if you want folks to enjoy it, you take it out of the oyster and put it on display. You don't kill the oyster and lock its lifeless rotting corpse in a box. You don't lock it for historical significance...

The question you reference was closed and forgotten. Not until it was deleted, and you brought this discussion up here, was it revived, polished up, and made a display piece. As it stands, the system works - the question is undeleted, opened, and not only isn't an eyesore but can theoretically attract even better answers should the need arise.

But it could have been done more efficiently:

• Reopen review failed to reopen, although it did attract an edit. More editing and more willingness to salvage the question among reviewers would have been nice.

• NO ONE voted to reopen the question until it was in review, and the only reason it was in review at all was due to its popularity. Even then, only one person - the editor - voted to reopen prior to yesterday.

• There were a lot of rather half-hearted edits. No one bothered fixing the title until yesterday. If you want folks to look with favor on a question, making the first thing they see on the page descriptive and attractive is a pretty good place to start.

Remember, closing is essentially a nomination for deletion. Only moderators (and the system) can delete questions that haven't been closed... And both are usually reluctant to do so. So if you see a question closed that you wouldn't like to see deleted, vote to reopen and fix any glaring issues so that others are encouraged to do likewise. Don't wait until the question is gone to consider what could've been done to save it...