The poll
asked whether there should be formalized restrictions beyond
the existing ones (only good articles can be proposed). Voters decided
against that and to keep the status quo instead where it is decided on
a case-by-case basis which articles to feature on the main page without
additional formalized selection criteria that would disqualify certain
articles. Put differently, they decided that if someone disagress that
a certain article should not be featured, they cannot point to policy
to support their argument.
That isn't true. Since the policy states that all terms are treated
equal (NPOV) there is only a discussion if the date might be suitable
(topics with correlation to a certain date get precedence). Otherwise it
is decided if the quality (actuality and so on) is suitable for AotD,
since there might be a lot of time between the last nomination for good
articles and the versions might differ strongly due to recent changes.
If a topic is offensive or not does not play any role. Only quality
matters. This rule existed from the beginning and it did not change.
What I meant
to say is: "if someone disagrees with featuring a certain
article, they cannot point to policy that restricts which subjects can
be featured to support their argument" as there is none and editors de-
cided against introducing any.