This answer looked like this when it was first posted:

Did you mean, technological singularity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

This looks suspiciously like a link-only answer. Let's look at what the post about link only answers says:

Yes, they're both very short, and yes, they contain links. But strip the markup, and you still get at least a little bit of useful information.

So if we strip the link, pretending that the last two words were linked - it's acceptable by that post. However, we have a policy that answers that don't provide support for themselves are to be removed.

So was this answer okay in its original state?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The "answer" really should have just been a comment (unless the person in question didn't have enough rep to post a comment, in which case, the answer was "fine" and it's up to the mods to do some minor fixing). $\endgroup$ Apr 24 '17 at 17:53
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with @TariqAli that the request for clarification should have been a comment, but the answer now seems to have an explanation, and does seem to propose a term "rebirth". I think link only answers can have value, as the field is evolving so rapidly (i.e. linking questioners to newly defined concepts relevant to their inquiry.) But we ideally don't want links without explanation and some "value add". $\endgroup$
    – DukeZhou Mod
    Jul 29 '17 at 20:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .