At the risk of receiving downvotes from both flaggers and mod-supporters, I would say that both you and "declining" moderator made mistakes here. * Your mistake is of using wrong flag. VLQ description says "answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing" which makes it a very (**very**) bad fit for link-only answers. Thing is, as long as the link isn't broken and is relevant to answer the question, nothing could be easier than _salvage_ the answer by just adding an abstract / summary of the content available at the link. Whenever I do that kind "salvage edits" <sup>([1](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/posts/155445/revisions "example"), [2](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/posts/155331/revisions "example"), [3](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/posts/146856/revisions "example"), [4](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/posts/148431/revisions "example")...)</sup> it works like a charm. <sup>In my experience, flagging as [Other with an appropriate comment](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/116311/165773 "find more detailed explanation here") is safer than VLQ (and than [Not An Answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/not-an-answer "see MSO questions in respective tag") for that matter) in cases like that. It just leaves less room for moderator to misunderstand your intent.</sup> * Mistake of the moderator is that they either were unable to recognize that your flag was submitted in a good faith (link-only answers are [discouraged](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/8259/165773 "as explained eg here"), you are right), or ignored the official guidance in [SE Community Moderator Newsletter](http://modnewsletter.stackexchange.com/2011/09/september-2011-newsletter/ "see section 'Flags Too Often Marked [declined]'") to dismiss flags as helpful in case of good faith submission.