https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/68491/128 was closed as "opinion-based", then I accepted the lone answer. But then a moderator unilaterally deleted it. Why not maintain it open to let others benefit from the answer?
We moderators discussed it internally and decided it was better this way.
It was not a good question for the site and keeping it would not have been a net benefit. We acknowledge that it was well written, but as the community determined, it demanded opinion-based answers.
Moreover, the accepted answer was not answering the question.
As a result, deletion was the best tool we had to deal with all the issues.
A good answer to the question would have discovered some kind of research quantifying differences between former fighter pilots those who had not given military service.
Research is expensive to conduct, and such a result may indicate that either group is "better" for some metric, or that there is no statistically significant disadvantage. With any of those results, what would be the nett gain? One group of pilots is disadvantaged compared to the other, or nothing is different.
So, there is unlikely to be money invested in such research, leaving this to anecdotal information.
Stating that another way as an example:
Consider "do glider pilots make better airline pilots" Anecdotal information from the US1549 landing in the Hudson River in 2009. Captain of the plane was a qualified glider pilot, who later said his experience in gliders helped with setting the plane down on the river, and that it could have been a softer landing if the A320 flight computers had not been limiting the inputs.
Upshot - Captain with a certain type of experience could have done a better job than computer in this specific instance. Does that mean glider pilots always emergency-land on no power better than non glider pilots ? Based on exactly one data point, that's a yes, but one data point is not statistically significant.