A poster asked the question Retriable or retryable? on February 9, 2016. It was closed for lack of research on February 15 of that year. On November 9, site participant sumelic edited the question to include a bit of research; but on November 14, three other site users deleted the question altogether. (As far as I can tell, deletions occur on EL&U without explanation.) The original question had received 8 upvotes, and attracted two answers (one by me) that had also received upvotes.
Today a poster has just asked Which spelling is preferred: “retriable” or “retryable”? The question is essentially a duplicate of the earlier one, but has problems of its own: the poster gives an example of how he would use the word (which would be good enough for an SWR question) but shows no research into the question (which I believe is required for questions of this kind). Site participant FumbleFingers points out the original question (visible only to users with 10,000+ reputation) in a comment beneath the probable duplicate question.
To me,the decision to delete the earlier question is unaccountable. Eight people thought the original question was worth upvoting, and sumelic's edit of the closed question seems to have removed the basis for its closure. But even if it should have remained closed, I don't see why it was deleted. The latest question shows continuing independent interest in the question the earlier question raised, and it seems to me that the only thing we've accomplished by deleting the original question is to leave site visitors with no guidance on the substance of the question—and of course, to set up another questioner to have his question closed for failing to jump through the necessary hoops to have his post qualify as a legitimate question.
I ask site participants who have the power to vote to undelete deleted questions to consider voting to undelete and reopen the original "Retriable or retryable?" question. Thanks!