Although you say every site starts off disputed, I think 99% of the sites added to TMA are 'generally recognised' (for example, they are on the SMR and have been discussed in journals). This is not to say the editors would discourage people adding their brand new discoveries and having them discussed on the forum. It just happens less often than you'd imagine - probably because this country is quite small and has a long history of antiquarians exploring and recording their discoveries.

The sites of Stonelifter's that remain: I left these because pictures and fieldnotes had been added by other contributors. It is true to say that they belong in the 'generally recognised' category, whereas the ones deleted tended to be Stonelifter's new discoveries, which had not had additional posts. As he had added the sites (and retained the copyright over what he had written) I think it's not unreasonable that the sites were deleted when he requested. If you want to know more about them you could try contacting him directly?

Another thing is that the editors try hard to keep the website lean and useful to contributors and general visitors alike. It may not be helpful to keep 'empty' sites with no information, particularly sites that are not widely recognised as prehistoric.

TMA Ed.