Earlier today I asked a question. It was very quickly downvoted and deleted, so I think only users with >= 10k and moderators will be able to view it. I just wanted some official discussion for future referece. (I cast one of the delete votes, so I'm not necessarily looking to have it reopened.)
The question concerned comparisons between C# and VB.NET, a very hot and contentious topic to be sure. These kinds of questions pop up every now and then, so I thought I'd post a Q/A which covered most of the bases, provided some links and provided a very neutral, balanced response to such questions. In the body, I tried to use some common phrases in the hope that the it would appear as a suggestion for users asking a similar question (using any of those phrases), perhaps guiding them away from asking it over again.
The community either did not understand that intent or disagreed with it. I know the FAQ pretty well and I can honestly say that the question was in violation of those guidelines in several respects. But there are examples of questions and answers which violate our FAQ and yet live on because they've been determined to have some benefit or value to the community. (Example: The Definitive C++ Book Guide and List where the justification for keeping it is: "despite this question not fully adhering to current moderation guidelines, it does more good than harm")
What is the consensus then? Is there any value in heading off a flurry (or even an annoying drip-drip) of future questions by going ahead and providing a Q/A for others to reference? I've seen this done before by high-rep users and moderators, though I've not been able to find any examples (so I can't say for sure what the circumstances were). What should the guidelines be? I would think a Q/A on a typically "not constructive" topic should provide an answer which effectively closes the door on any additional answers, but perhaps that would be too hard to do?