Deleting questions for violating clause 3.1 is not barbarism?

Question

Toaster

Dear moderators.
We all respect your tireless work in maintaining order in this viper.

However, I want to draw your precious attention to the fact that it is better not to do your job in any way than to do it formally, keeping in mind the letter of the rules, and not the goals and objectives of the resource as a whole. And this goal is not an endless series of questions "it doesn't work for mine" for those who are not able to master the Google search engine, but the compilation of a more or less up-to-date knowledge base for those who have mastered this system. And which the Google search engine brings to the site, providing some kind of monetization.

And consequently, the severity and inevitability of punishment must be measured against the potential usefulness of the question and answers to it for the audience, and not with formal criteria such as "extra tag". Especially in this regard, I am surprised by the selectivity of the punishing sword of justice:

• The next inarticulate sobs graciously left alone (with a complete change of tags!)
  
• and a more or less non-trivial question (of course, misunderstood by most readers) was cut to the root because of one (!) Wrong tag.
  

Answer 1

Deletion of questions for violation of clause 3.1 is used as a last resort, only in cases where the offender commits a violation of clause 3.1 systematically.