The question that was asked is: How to check exactly what apt install does. That's the question that I answered, and my answer was a simple one-line command that does exactly that, but I wasn't finished with this question yet. muru and N0rbert decided that "exactly" in this question meant that it should be duplicated to two other questions that didn't match the question that was asked. The question at this point in time had only two close votes for the following reasons:
muru close voted it as a duplicate of How do I get a list of installed files from a package?
N0rbert close voted it as a duplicate of What does apt-get install do under the hood?
I posted the following comment.
This question is not a duplicate of that question, nor is it a duplicate of the question that N0rbert linked to because neither question answers the question of how to check exactly what apt install does? and my answer to this question does answer this. So do the leeches win again?
It's not the same question and I would not merge flag it with either linked duplicate question for that reason. It's a standalone question that I thought was in danger of being closed for the wrong reason by three more close voters, which is for no valid reason at all. And that is exactly what happened.
It should have been obvious to muru who replied to my comment and three other reviewers who close voted it after I posted that comment what was going to happen next. Closing this question as a one-way duplicate of two dead end duplicate targets is a bad rule. The bad rule that I am referring to is like saying that this question sucks, so let's duplicate link it to a half empty space in the void simply in order to get it closed, instead of reopening it. And apparently someone in the community agreed that it really did suck because the question was downvoted too. Or maybe someone just passionately wanted the question to be closed, and it was downvoted in order to influence less passionate potential close voters. I am doing everything I can to improve my understanding of why this type of situation keeps on reoccurring the way it does.
Why not reopen it anyway?
Maybe there are others in the Ubuntu community who would be interested in knowing how to check exactly what
apt install does instead of being treated evasively or misleadingly in response to a legitimate request. It wouldn't cause any damage to the Ubuntu community to reopen this question, so I am asking for this question to be reopened.