Recently I started the review question IGB Stack Flair – A dynamic flair for Stack Exchange sites. I created the tags stackapp and flair for it because they didn't exist and that's simply what it is about (see IGB Stack Flair – A dynamic flair for Stack Exchange sites on Stack Apps).
The creation of stackapp has been accepted shortly after but it's gone in the meantime. It most probably has been deleted. First questions:
- Where is the protocol about the deletion?
- Who deleted it?
- Why did he/she do so?
- What/where is the guideline page that contains the reason(s) that justify this deletion?
- How/where can I veto this decision? Only here on meta? Every time such happens?
flair's creation has been rejected by user Mast and both of the tags have been deleted from my review question by him, with the comment "Not everything deserves it's own tag. If you disagree, feel free to take it up on meta.". I had a short discussion with him in that he continued to point me to meta. Second questions:
- Which guidelines did user Mast follow when he rejected my tag creation proposal?
- What/where is the guideline page that contains the reason(s) to justify this rejection (and the following deletion of the tags from my review question)?
- How/where can I veto this decision? Only here on meta? Every time such happens?
Ad 6.: "Not everything deserves it's own tag." is an opinion that's perfectly fine. However, there may be other opinions (mine, for instance) and this reasoning is a killer phrase (meant to prevent discussions in advance?). It wasn't about "everything" in this case, it was about one tag in this particular case (and two for the whole review question). Two of the meaningful kind, to stress my opinion.
I've been a Wikipedia author (of its German edition mainly) for more than 10 years, with 16,800 edits now. I know the categorization system and its importance there. Tags at SE are basically the same. Without proper categorization/tagging you're lost on big sites like these. You're not going to find anything. And if, you're not going to find it easily.
Finally, I'd like to say that having to write such a paper-like essay here, just to justify the meaningful creation of two simple tags doesn't make my day a bit happier. It steals my–perhaps also your–precious time. I could have answered a few questions on one of the various SE sites I'm involved in the meantime. It keeps me from that why I'm here: answering questions as good and helpful as possible, asking good questions that others didn't think of yet. If I may be honest: That's utterly ridiculous.
P.S.: Over the recent years I reduced my activities at WP drastically since edits are often challenged, or even reverted almost immediately without comprehensible justification. Discussion tend to get out of hand and to become personal at a point (I can't count the times Mike Godwin has been honoured this way). It seems as if such is inherent on sites that rely on collective intelligence.
P.P.S: Another argument: The tags' subjects are not my personal invention/theory. They are integrated parts of the SE network:
The latter being used by 6 million users, on 12 million questions and 20 million answers (figures of September 2016).