Here we go again (wikipedia)

[βαθμιαίος]

For what it's worth, Immanuel Thoughtmaker has now been "whacked with a wet trout" (wikipedia-ish for "you did something silly"). He has also been referred to a guideline that says

When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.

Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.

Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics.

I want my way and the way of others as well in a perfect consensus without suppressing my own view. There is no true consensus if one part of the consensus has their opinion artificially suppressed.

What would the consensus be between "delete" and "don't delete"?