I was asking a question about the 100+ definitions of "life" referenced in the Wikipedia article

I am active on math.stackexchange where everyone is encouraged to show the thinking that they've put on a math problem in their question. I added details on what appeared to be an obvious definition but which I knew was wrong. I was told that I should not say what was obvious to me and that this is not a place for "asking why is this wrong?" questions.

That's fine. I removed my naive statement. Actually better. Less work for me in posting a question (I spent 2 hours trying to specify my thinking in a concise manner that made it clear that I knew it was a naive assumption).

I found a great technical reference on what is wrong ad right with the 100+ definitions. The Wikipedia article references an abstract but does not give the full details.

Today, someone said that if the article was worth referencing, I should provide it as an answer and deleted the article from my question. This surprised me.

I have already accepted an answer. From the comments received, the article I found, and the answers provided, I really do feel that my question was answered.

I was just unsure on the value of deleting a reference to a 50+ page article that provides solid analysis of 100+ definitions of life. Is it biology stack exchange's policy to keep questions as simple as possible and not includes link in the question to articles that provide value to others who will pose the same question, it suggests me that it is encouraging questions to be short and sweet but lacking nuance.

What do people think here? Was the poster right to delete the link and ask me to instead summarize the article in my own answer (I do not feel qualified in my knowledge to do this)? Is it preferred on this site to keep questions as simple as possible and to only reference an article if one is asking about the content of the article cited?

I am fine with this answer. I am also fine to change my mind on my thinking if someone could explain to me why plain and simple is better than nuanced. I wasn't clear if the commenter was correct which is why I am posting here.

Thanks very much.

I was asking a question about the 100+ definitions of "life" referenced in the Wikipedia article

I am active on math.stackexchange where everyone is encouraged to show the thinking that they've put on a math problem in their question. I added details on what appeared to be an obvious definition but which I knew was wrong. I was told that I should not say what was obvious to me and that this is not a place for "asking why is this wrong?" questions.

That's fine. I removed my naive statement. Actually better. Less work for me in posting a question (I spent 2 hours trying to specify my thinking in a concise manner that made it clear that I knew it was a naive assumption).

I found a great technical reference on what is wrong ad right with the 100+ definitions. The Wikipedia article references an abstract but does not give the full details.

Today, someone said that if the article was worth referencing, I should provide it as an answer and deleted the article from my question. This surprised me.

I have already accepted an answer. From the comments received, the article I found, and the answers provided, I really do feel that my question was answered.

I was just unsure on the value of deleting a reference to a 50+ page article that provides solid analysis of 100+ definitions of life. Is it biology stack exchange's policy to keep questions as simple as possible and not includes link in the question to articles that provide value to others who will pose the same question, it suggests me that it is encouraging questions to be short and sweet but lacking nuance.

What do people think here? Was the poster right to delete the link and ask me to instead summarize the article in my own answer (I do not feel qualified in my knowledge to do this)? Is it preferred on this site to keep questions as simple as possible and to only reference an article if one is asking about the content of the article cited?

I am fine with this answer. I am also fine to change my mind on my thinking if someone could explain to me why plain and simple is better than nuanced. I wasn't clear if the commenter was correct which is why I am posting here.

Thanks very much.

I was asking a question about the 100+ definitions of "life" referenced in the Wikipedia article

I am active on math.stackexchange where everyone is encouraged to show the thinking that they've put on a math problem in their question. I added details on what appeared to be an obvious definition but which I knew was wrong. I was told that I should not say what was obvious to me and that this is not a place for "asking why is this wrong?" questions.

That's fine. I removed my naive statement. Actually better. Less work for me in posting a question (I spent 2 hours trying to specify my thinking in a concise manner that made it clear that I knew it was a naive assumption).

I found a great technical reference on what is wrong ad right with the 100+ definitions. The Wikipedia article references an abstract but does not give the full details.

Today, someone said that if the article was worth referencing, I should provide it as an answer and deleted the article from my question. This surprised me.

I have already accepted an answer. From the comments received, the article I found, and the answers provided, I really do feel that my question was answered.

I was just unsure on the value of deleting a reference to a 50+ page article that provides solid analysis of 100+ definitions of life. Is biology stack exchange is not a place to post exciting articles that provide value to others who will pose the same question, it suggests me that it is encouraging questions to be short and sweet but lacking nuance.

What do people think here? Was the poster right to delete the link and ask me to summarize in the answer? Is it preferred on this site to keep questions as simple as possible and to only reference an article if one is asking about the content of the article cited?

I am fine with this answer. I am also fine to change my mind on my thinking if someone could explain to me why plain and simple is better than nuanced. I wasn't clear if the commenter was correct which is why I am posting here.

Thanks very much.

I was asking a question about the 100+ definitions of "life" referenced in the Wikipedia article

I am active on math.stackexchange where everyone is encouraged to show the thinking that they've put on a math problem in their question. I added details on what appeared to be an obvious definition but which I knew was wrong. I was told that I should not say what was obvious to me and that this is not a place for "asking why is this wrong?" questions.

That's fine. I removed my naive statement. Actually better. Less work for me in posting a question (I spent 2 hours trying to specify my thinking in a concise manner that made it clear that I knew it was a naive assumption).

I found a great technical reference on what is wrong ad right with the 100+ definitions. The Wikipedia article references an abstract but does not give the full details.

Today, someone said that if the article was worth referencing, I should provide it as an answer and deleted the article from my question. This surprised me.

I have already accepted an answer. From the comments received, the article I found, and the answers provided, I really do feel that my question was answered.

I was just unsure on the value of deleting a reference to a 50+ page article that provides solid analysis of 100+ definitions of life. Is it biology stack exchange's policy to keep questions as simple as possible and not includes link in the question to articles that provide value to others who will pose the same question, it suggests me that it is encouraging questions to be short and sweet but lacking nuance.

What do people think here? Was the poster right to delete the link and ask me to instead summarize the article in my own answer (I do not feel qualified in my knowledge to do this)? Is it preferred on this site to keep questions as simple as possible and to only reference an article if one is asking about the content of the article cited?

I am fine with this answer. I am also fine to change my mind on my thinking if someone could explain to me why plain and simple is better than nuanced. I wasn't clear if the commenter was correct which is why I am posting here.

Thanks very much.