Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-11/Should unidiomatic phrases be included if there is consensus for likely utility to readers?

Should unidiomatic phrases be included if there is consensus for likely utility to readers?
Voting on: Removing the following passage be remove from Criteria for inclusion (CFI) In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers.

Alternatively, replacing the passage.

Background for the proposal
In late 2014 and early 2015 a vote was held to decide whether to "[make] it official policy to delete entries which do not meet WT:CFI [...] even if there is a consensus to keep". That change was not enacted and the vote was closed "no consensus" with 7 supporting votes and 9 opposing votes (44% support).

Shortly after the vote was closed, Kephir, who entered an "abstain" in the vote, removed the template marking Criteria for inclusion as a "policy, guideline or common practices page" and instead marked it as obsolete and "not intended to be used ever again" saying "how else can you interpret [the vote]?". Shortly afterward that BD2412, who did not participate in the vote, undid the change saying that "CFI can still be a guideline even if it is not mandatory where there is consensus for an exception". After that BD2412 added the following passage to Criteria for inclusion: In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers. In their edit summary for the change BD2412 wrote that "[t]his is what the vote really means."

More recently, PUC removed the passage added by BD2412 saying "[it] was never approved by vote" and also explained "so that it can no longer be invoked by the likes of Dan Polansky". Since then PUC has undone their edit so that the passage originally added by BD2412 is once again part of Criteria for inclusion.

A 2012 vote held that "[a]ny substantial or contested changes [to CFI] require a VOTE". A discussion was recently held on the question of whether "the removal of the passage originally added by BD2412 a 'substantial or contested change' that should have required a formal vote". Of the three people who have expressed their opinion on this question as of writing, two days after the discussion was started, all have said that the removal was "substantial" and/or should have followed a formal vote.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Vote created: &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2022-11/Should unidiomatic phrases be included if there is consensus for likely utility to readers?

Option 1: remove the passage
Remove the passage:
 * In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers.

Option 2: replace the passage
Replace the passage:
 * In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers.

With:
 * An attested term that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of editors on a per-case basis. What criteria, tests or distinguishing marks the editors will consider to make the term inclusion-worthy is unspecified. Past RFD discussions can serve as a store for such criteria, but are not binding.