I declined both those flags, because they were
very low quality flags against posts that were not
Very low quality by our definition.
Very low quality has a very specific meaning (and it's used for the review queue, so it needs to be handled strictly). When you're flagging a post as
Very Low Quality, it's as if you're saying the following:
This content should not exist. Delete it. Now. It is not salvageable through editing.
Put another way, if I'm not comfortable outright deleting a post, I'm going to decline the VLQ flag.
The two posts you listed were bad, but for different reasons, 1 was a link only answer, and the other was just a short answer with bad punctuation.
Both were salvageable through editing.
If you had flagged this post as "User asked to expand on link; did not. Flagging for deletion." I would have accepted it (it shows effort to engage, which is really important in building and maintaining a community).
If you're flagging something as
Very Low Quality, so long as you follow the above criteria, you'll be ok.
The Very Low Quality flag reason is not and cannot be a proxy for removing a question or answer that should be removed or closed a question for other reasons. It's a shortcut to the Moderator team, so we have to make sure it's not being abused or used as a proxy to get around community moderation.