This is a reply to the [answer][1] by Blind Spots ♦, the moderator who closed the question. (This was a comment to their answer, but my comment was deleted): 

[Blind Spots' answer][1] would be more helpful if it could explain, specifically, what details or clarity the OP could have added to their question to prevent it from being closed and deleted. (If such guidance was given in the [chat conversation linked by the OP][2], perhaps it could be quoted or summarized in the answer for the benefit of future question askers.) Simply repeating that the question "needs details or clarity" is not very informative since that is already the reason given for closing the question. A *clear and detailed explanation of the criteria for avoiding question closure* would be appreciated.

****

This was my answer prior to the [answer][1] by Blind Spots ♦:

(I wrote an answer to avoid the [automatic deletion of the question by the Community bot (also known as “Roomba”)][3]. However, the question is about a unilateral *moderator* action. Ideally, *this question should be answered by a moderator*. If no one had written an answer, this question would have been roomba’d, dismissing it entirely.)

From reading the [linked chat conversation][2], what I understood was that the moderator thought that the OP got certain facts wrong in the formulation of their question or that the OP’s premise was wrong. From the chat message:

>I closed the question because MS Exchange uses folders to organize messages, and messages can't exist in more than one folder at a time. So if you have an OWA question it should be framed within that context.

If that’s the case, then that should be *addressed in an answer*, so that other users who have the same issue or question as the OP will also know the solution to their issue. That type of answer is known as a "[frame challenge][4]" answer, AKA "challenging the assumptions of a question", or "questioning its premise". This fits with Stack Exchange’s goal to "[have the best answers to every question"][5]. The question can’t be answered if it’s closed.

The "needs details or clarity" close reason is for questions that are ambiguous, vague, or unclear about what the actual question is, as opposed to "has a faulty premise", "got certain facts wrong in the formulation of the question", or "does not meet quality standards". (Related: [Is “needs details or clarity” connected to the help center article on questions that are automatically blocked for not meeting quality standards?](https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5008/7584))


Also, [Web Apps SE implemented three-vote question closure][6] more than three years ago, in January 2020. Since we already have three-vote closure, I think the mods should let the close voters vote on whether the types of questions like the one mentioned above should be closed or not. That way, the mods can focus on dealing with the blatantly off-topic questions as per the [Stack Exchange Theory of Moderation][7]. This would make the closure process more transparent and democratic and also reduce the workload for the mods.


  [1]: https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5077/7584
  [2]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/146947/discussion-on-question-by-franck-dernoncourt-how-can-i-see-all-mails-in-the-micr
  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5221/162827
  [4]: https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6842/82646
  [5]: https://stackexchange.com/tour
  [6]: https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4724/7584
  [7]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/18/a-theory-of-moderation/