A recent review of this answer was declined, because
flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer.
But the description of the flag used, states
VLQ means the flagger thinks this post is beyond saving -- no amount of editing or polishing will turn this particular turd into gold. It is a call for a pooper-scooper. To clarify this, we are making the language a bit stronger:
very low quality
This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question/answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.
This phrasing is apparently not understood in the same way by me as by the moderator, and I think my comprehension of English is pretty good. Thus clarification is in order.
If something has "technical inaccuracies" or is "altogether wrong", does that not directly imply it must have severe ... content problems, is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and therefore might need to be removed?
It seems that this flag has been declined precisely for being used the way its usage text (and the associated meta post that heralded said usage text) tells us it should.
What exactly is the limit on using VLQ flags? How bad does it have to be, while still not falling into a different category?
NB: I am not interested in discussing the merits of this particular answer, or whether the flag was correctly applied to it (though the latter question will likely be resolved as a matter of course).
Assume for purposes of discussion that some hypothetical answer does contain total dross and should be removed, receives this flag, and is declined for the reason given.