Take a look at this answer: Produce the number 2014 without any numbers in your source code.
This is the most upvoted answer on our site right now. However, as many have pointed out, by modern standards, this is not a competitive solution because it doesn't take trivial steps to be more competitive as per the challenge's criterion (code-golf).
Some people argue in favor of deletion because indeed, this is not competitive, and our policy dictates that answers must attempt to be competitive and should be deleted otherwise.
Others argue against it, because it is a creative approach and has historical significance.
Specifically to quote myself on this dispute:
[...] i think this kind of creativity embodies the whole point of the art side of code-golf but it is technically not competitive and doesn't attempt to take trivial steps to be more competitive (source)
We should have a definitive policy on handling these types of answers. Specifically, answers that are:
- popular in terms of votes and visibility
- are not strictly invalid in terms of not solving the problem
- follow a creative approach but do not even attempt to be competitive
What should we do with these? Leave them be since they predate modern expectations? Lock them? Edit them if the user themselves is inactive / unwilling to do so? Delete them? Suggestions welcome.
There is a specific thing to note about this answer, as pointed out by caird coinheringaahing in TNB. It is not actually the first answer to implement this approach; it is a port of an essentially identical Scala answer which is actually golfed, and the OP has rolled back golfs in the past, meaning they are not inactive, but actively opposing making their post more competitive.