For that specific question I'd go with the FAQ:
To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where …
- every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”
- “What’s your favorite ______?” is silly.
Although the first part of that sentence, "every answer is equally valid", is the important one, (almost) every time I quote that part of the FAQ people rage that their question is not asking about what's everyone's favourite (It's just an example, people!). It's the most relevant documentation to quote (imho), it's not the most helpful, unfortunately.
The question in question does invite equally valid answers, and when that happens it's usually the popular and not the actually useful answer that floats at the top. Furthermore answers keep appearing ad nauseum, and the whole Q&A thread quickly degenerates into an unmaintainable pile of repetitive crap.
- None of the above seems to be happening, though.
The question has generated three answers, and it was asked more than a month ago. Granted, I lack the expertise to judge whether the answers are actually useful, but they seem thorough enough, don't seem to be of the "what's your favourite" variety, and there isn't any information repetition.
My advice would be:
- Add a post notice to the question
Moderators have a small set of canned official(ish) looking post notices they can add to any question or answer. The "insufficient explanation" one provides warning to future answerers of the type of answers the community expects:
We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer: please explain why you're recommending it as a solution. Answers that don't explain anything will be deleted. See Good Subjective, Bad Subjective for more information.
Typically we'd add a post notice after the first sign of trouble, not pro-actively, however sometimes it might help protect / salvage a good question that sits right on the fence of what works with the Q&A format and what doesn't. It's up to the linguistic mods to decide whether a post notice is justified or not, this is just a suggestion.
- Forget about canonical sources.
The only canonical sources for the scope of Linguistics is the site's FAQ and Meta Linguistics. Yes, Stack Exchange in general doesn't like list questions. Stack Overflow closes them on sight and we kinda hate them on Programmers as well. But neither the Stack Overflow crowd nor our crowd are linguists, we have absolutely no idea about the subject matter. And I don't think anyone involved in writing the "subjective" blog posts in the Stack Exchange blog is a linguist either.
Who knows, list questions on linguistics might just work! If you feel they are detrimental to the site, make a case against them on Meta Linguistics and let the community decide. If you feel they could work with some extra protection, again Meta Linguistics would be the appropriate venue for the discussion. If you do decide to raise the issue on Meta, feel free to back up your arguments with any MSO discussion you can find or any SE blog post, I'm not saying that you or the Linguistics community should dismiss the collective experience, but you should decide if our past troubles apply to your subject matter on your own.
Most sites I'm active on seem to follow the general guidelines, and it might seem a waste of time to have a discussion that had been had countless times before only to reach the same conclusion. Well, there are a couple of sites that go completely against the flow and are doing just fine, Linguistics might just be one of the exceptions. Evaluate your questions that seem to go against the generic guidelines, and see for yourself if they have turn into a crapfest or not.
Lastly, and since no one has mentioned it yet, I find the Real Questions Have Answers blog post to be the more comprehensive on the matter, and I think the more useful quote is Aarobot conclusion:
real questions have answers, not items or ideas or opinions
The question in questions seems to have answers, and that's good enough for me.