https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/96510/resources-to-determine-pseudo-anglicisms was closed by a diamond moderator as "Not Constructive", without any comments given.

As far as I can tell, I described what I was asking for, why I wanted it, and some possible ideas of how such a resource might work. And I think the answers would be objective. How could the question be improved?

This answer on meta suggests that at least some resources questions are on-topic, at least on meta.

I initially thought about asking it on meta, rather than main, but I decided to post it on the latter as that is where most questions are asked.

  • NB: All moderators are "diamond" moderators.
    – Robusto
    Jan 3, 2013 at 22:15
  • @Robusto This seems to be a popular tautology: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75189/…
    – Golden Cuy
    Jan 3, 2013 at 22:17
  • Please note that most "resources" questions get closed. As the one who closed your question, I endorse @Robusto's answer.
    – user10893
    Jan 3, 2013 at 22:31

1 Answer 1


Take a look at this section of the FAQ. Under "not constructive" it specifically states:

We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.

I think that is why your answer was closed.

Given that you believe this topic may be acceptable here on meta, why didn't you just ask it here?


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .