This answer...

Why didn't Agent Smith just die?

... is an 800 word wall of text with l33tspeak, txtspk, swearing, failed punctuation, poor grammar, next to no capitalisation, more swearing and can, most generously, be described as having no coherent thesis, counter thesis or argument.

neo just kinda lost to the source. neo wanted freedom from the matrix, he took a human body, he actively participated in the destruction of the matrix, he hated the source, in the end, he lost, or maybe, became great friends with the source. but lost the ultimate fight of domination. neo created morpheus and used morpheus body (morpheus u used to dance) to mislead zion members (great its morpheus, wat crazy talk u have now morpheus), also with trinity (in the beginning she is there in the matrix alone to talk to neo, at a club, after talking to him on the computer, wasn't it like hella hard to get into the matrix?), apac as well to try and fool the agents. he wanted to convince the humans to convince the machines. i try to judge each character as man or machine. Mr smith is the program neo playing into the sources hands i think, the entire movie neo is like taking it one day at a time, like a machine would inside a humans body, fighting smith as a program to end the resistance, like, i have the source fooled haha! but no, the source is onto you and the oracle and smith and everything is all there to put an end to neo's activities. more random thoughts, morpheus ship was like indoctrination ville with all the training programs and this and agent training jump training, which none of the other ship had, one mouse wrote one woman, one ugly toothless guy wrote one trainstation, and what, trinity wrote all that training? no i think a program did all that to 1 convince people of what they want like agents are soooo bad and u have to jump and karate, 2 show like wow trinity and morpheus cs+ skills thru the roof we gotta be on they nuts. cuz mr anderson is like THE trinity who hacked the fbi database omg!! cute! one of these lives has a future one of these does not. mr anderson dies. neo lives?

My VLQ was declined as "This answer is salvageable so please edit rather than flagging" which does (kinda) answer the question why it was rejected, but even with heroic amounts of editing I see no reasonable way to turn this into an acceptable answer.

So why was it rejected?

  • 9
    I tried to edit but did not know how to reword "wow trinity and morpheus cs+ skills thru the roof we gotta be on they nuts". Aug 24, 2016 at 13:16
  • 6
    To ease your mind, I just cast the concluding 3rd delete vote. imho, "salvaging" that answer is more work than posting a wholly new answer. However,in this specific case, it's a judgement call - so I am glad that the moderator did leave it up to the community, to be honest. I fully agree with the flag decline; if not the explained reason behind it Aug 24, 2016 at 14:18
  • 2
    @zabeus - how did you get on with "*neo created morpheus and used morpheus body (morpheus u used to dance) to mislead zion members (great its morpheus, wat crazy talk u have now morpheus)"?
    – Valorum
    Aug 24, 2016 at 14:29

1 Answer 1


There is a (wrong) answer buried in the wall of text that is the final revision you quoted from:

mr smith didn't die because he was the sources plan to get rid of the threat neo.

You actually flagged the first revision which doesn't have that statement. It's questionable whether the first revision actually answers the question, but the argument from that revision seems to be that

the whole story was a construct of the source

In other words, the answer in that post is that the Source controlled everything in the story and caused Agent Smith to be destroyed but not die. This idea is explained (slightly) better in the edited version.

Recall that the description of the very low quality flag's use says:

This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.

There's no doubt that the answer has severe formatting and content problems, but the question is whether it is salvageable through editing. The post does have an answer so it is theoretically salvageable. On the other hand, you are correct that it would take "heroic amounts of editing" to turn it into something worth reading. Since you (understandably) didn't want to edit, the recommended course of action is to simply downvote. A comment asking the answerer to clean it up would also be helpful in the unlikely event the user was willing and able to make that post good enough on its own or just with a reasonable amount of editing.

It's also worth noting that this post had previously been reviewed as "Looks OK" by one user in the very low quality queue, hence the responding moderator was probably reluctant to delete the post for that reason as well.

This is a very borderline post and different users will come to different conclusions on whether or not it's worth keeping at all. In the end it was deleted, probably in part due to the meta effect.

  • 1
    Given that there's only a tiny kernel of answer, is your idea of an appropriate edit removing 90% of what he's written?
    – Valorum
    Aug 24, 2016 at 16:14
  • 4
    @Valorum No, I'd just emphasize that kernel. You could make it bold, for example. You could also copy the kernel to the top of the post and make it a TL;DR header, then leave the original text below it as a "further details" section. I'd also edit the original text to correct spelling and capitalization, split it into paragraphs, etc. And you could remove small amounts of totally irrelevant text like "ok i am done thank you !!!!" and "dun dun..".
    – Null Mod
    Aug 24, 2016 at 16:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .