Because you won't

It's not that there's no alleyway for content to be removed but it certainly should be discussed, yes. This whole thing falls mostly under style I think (tho Blargel's argument is valid too, I hadn't thought about it). I want style to be discussed among users even tho moderators can define it. It's ill defined though and it's not something I can work too well into policy. I can try to work on a page about removal, though, that can touch on things like style and invalidity. It might be worth doing.

As much as you are right about the reversion policy the point of the policy is to stop reversion wars, so, I think if you're put in a position to revert again because someone's not listening, it may be better to start the discussion thread yourself.

(EDIT: To advertise fairness, I did discuss this with Mystickskye in private as well.)

That would actually help. It's not exactly required by the policy right now, but I feel like we should talk about things like these (and things unlike these) before removing them. Afterwards we can set up a sort of horizontal stare decisis and make people appeal to have content on the pages, rather than appeal to take them off (since that seems to be what people like Mystic seem to think is happening), but there should at least be a day's worth of discussion before we rush to delete things that have no clearly defined precedent. (And I would like to be linked to the discussion Mystic says sets the precedent.)

Also I apologize about the reversions.