I've only been skimming this thread, but I think people proposing
policies upon policies are missing what actually makes wikipedia work:
people just do things that need to be done. When I see a crap article
that says "peter is gay", I hit 'delete', I don't list it on a page
and
request permission to delete it. I don't think most other people do
either (or even read this list or the millions of policy pages).
It's true people should exercise discretion, but if an article that has
about 8 words in it was "unfairly" deleted, it's not like Wikipedia has
lost an irreplaceable masterwork. There is no prohibition against
creating a new article in its place (and while you're at it, if you made
it better it wouldn't even be a question). If there are specific people
consistently deleting questionable things, you could leave a message on
their talk page asking them about it.
Some of the arguments over "unfairly deleted" VfD articles seem to have
a similar misconception that we're deleting all possible articles at
that location, while we're only deleting the one that's actually there.
If there's an incoherent article with no useful information at a
location of a famous person or entity, it's still appropriate to delete
it. Someone can later create an actual article at that location, which
then wouldn't be deleted.
But the main point is that Wikipedia works by people doing what they
think is reasonable, and talking to people who are doing things they
disagree with, not by a bunch of policy mumbo-jumob. I've taken to not
even reading policy pages anymore, because there are literally thousands
of them, and most of them are incredibly long and intricate. I don't
know what the hell deletion policy is anymore: there must be at least 10
pages on the subject, and 100 proposals to replace it with a new set of
policies.
-Mark