* Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
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.