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 '13 at 22:15
  • @Robusto This seems to be a popular tautology: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75189/… – Andrew Grimm Jan 3 '13 at 22:17
  • Please note that most "resources" questions get closed. As the one who closed your question, I endorse @Robusto's answer. – simchona Jan 3 '13 at 22:31

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 .