There is currently a discussion about whether to adopt guidelines to discourage certain problematic posts (be they questions or answers). Anyone having enough rep for meta can participate in that discussion, yet many of those will lack enough rep to see the problematic posts, most or all of which have been deleted. It seems somewhat contradictory, to be allowed to participate in a discussion about guidelines, but to be unable to see the posts which motivate the advocates of those guidelines. Would it not be better for such posts to be downvoted sufficiently rather than deleted?
Of course if a post is blatantly offensive, completely off-topic spam, etc., it should be deleted. But would it not be better for more borderline questions/answers to be downvoted until they are greyed out, rather than deleted? (e.g. vague or incoherent posts, posts which appearing to be expressing personal opinions without any attempt to present objective arguments or references, etc.) It would also serve to provide some easily accessible negative examples, of how not to ask or answer.