We once again have a perfectly reasonable question, Is there a complete list of good-aligned gods of hunting?, that has been closed. It should not have been. This time there is the claim that it is a “shopping” question.
We should close problematic questions. This isn’t one. It already has two answers that seem, if I say so myself as the author of one of them, pretty solid. We have many examples of questions like this one that have been quite successful as well. In actual fact, requests for thorough lists and other resources have long been the recommended way to approach the kind of problem the querent has here, instead of asking for any one example—which would be a shopping question.
And, if I can editorialize a little... It seems to me that the community, or a segment of it, has become extremely trigger-happy with their close votes and should desist, because it’s really annoying to bring it to meta every time. We should concern ourselves less with enforcing the letter of the law and more with its spirit—one of the close votes came from a user who literally expressed sadness at “having to” vote to close it. We don’t! We, who have the close-vote privilege, are experienced users entrusted with the right and responsibility to judge questions and whether they are likely to cause problems. Please, we should exercise that capacity critically and intentionally, not robotically “following the rules.” The rules were never written to be used that way in the first place.
The Stack Exchange system is very intentionally decentralized. There isn’t really supposed to be any one person or small group of people “in charge.” Moderators are “exception handlers,” not rulers or even leaders—as established members of the community, they may be leaders, but the diamond doesn’t automatically make them so, and their leadership is based purely on their experience and ability to explain the advantages and disadvantages of a particular stance—not any vested authority. The authority and responsibility for maintaining the site falls instead on every single user, with that responsibility gradually building up as we gain reputation. We do a disservice to the site if we abandon our personal responsibility and judgment in favor of fixed “policies” suggested by other users—they aren’t special. If they’ve received support, that’s good and well and you should consider that heavily, you should understand what they suggest and why they suggest it and why that has received support, and consider those points in your own decision making. But the key word is consider. In your decision making. No one here is going to come up with a perfect one-size-fits-all policy that covers all eventualities including those that haven’t come up yet. We have a responsibility to make a choice—yes, a subjective, personal, ad hoc choice—with each case. Does this match the pattern the policy was written to protect against? Is it likely to cause the problems we’ve discussed? Or is this case, for whatever reason, different?
And some of those who voted to close the question will argue that no, it isn’t different, and fine; I disagree so I’ll take it to meta. But since at least one user seemed to feel “required” to close the question despite their own opinion, and that’s not how this system is supposed to work at all. And for those who want to over-emphasize the role of meta in communal decision-making, I would point out that each time I bring a question over here, it seems as though the community agrees with me and re-opens it. Food for thought, maybe.