Yeah, this is one I don't have much of a problem with, and I'm not one for prescriptive nuggets in general.
Partly because it's so hard to see how it could be taken wrong as so many seem to. I mean, you'll end up in a logic spiral if you really believe the advice is to remove anything you like. After all, if you should not like anything you like then do you still like the things you like because you don't like them? (Also, never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.)
Practicality is the key, here. It's possible for a word or a sentence or a chapter to be a beautiful piece of art in its own right. The best thing you've ever made. But if it doesn't make the whole work of which it's supposed to be a part better, it doesn't matter how beautiful it is or how much work you put into it. No sentence, no matter how wonderful, will save a bad book.
If you find yourself trying to solve a problem and your argument against a solution is that it removes a little line you're really fond of, don't you kind of know what the right answer is already?
It's a form of the sunk cost fallacy. Nothing is off the table if cutting it makes the whole better.
If removing it makes the whole worse, then you have a concrete reason for keeping it and it isn't merely a darling, it's pulling it's weight as a member of the team.