Given that ID questions make up the vast majority of our production, should we really be purging them out of the archives? I've personally put a lot of time and effort into those questions, and I'd hate to see that all just be deleted. That library of answered identifications is our main asset at this point.
They're not an asset, they're a burden. Most are low quality questions where only the OP can give us an answer and even the ones that have good sources like a link can rot and many have already. I also don't know besides finding new music that anyone besides the OP actually got useful information from them.
We can talk about a longer timescale for deletion, but at some point they should go as even having closed questions like that encourages more of them.
I suggest we use some version of Namaskaram's score-based criteria.
For instance, the folks at Anime & Manga chose to first delete all ID posts except those posts with question score > 3 AND at least one answer with score > 2, and then they added the historical lock to all the ID posts
The scorched earth approach is extremely discouraging to me as MusicFans' most active poster.
identify-this-genre should stay, and all deletions, closings and downvotes done by the mods should be reverted.
Someone could conceivably google, say "my uncle used to love me roger miller genre" and find them. So such questions are not only useful to those who asked them, but also others. And the purpose of this site is to serve both.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the justification for this policy, as it is being implemented, was fraudulent. The proposed policy was to to get rid of all "memory" questions:
Proposal: Limit Idenifcation questions to tangible questions only (non-memory) ... A simple proposal drafted by the mods and community managers is to limit the ID questions to questions that have tangible sources including links, lyrics, pictures of sheet music or album covers ect.
But it's being applied to questions like mine that included the title, singer and link, even showing the cover art.
It was not a moderator mistake either: