<p>I came across the <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/analysis" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;analysis&#39;" rel="tag">analysis</a> tag and was going to write a Meta post suggesting deleting this tag on the grounds that it is a <a href="https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/">meta tag</a> (the only meta tag that we are tolerating here on CV is [self-study]) that moreover is inconsistently used and does not seem to serve any useful purpose. One could in principle put [analysis] tag, as it is defined in its wiki excerpt (see below), on at least half of the posts on CV. It's way too broad.</p>

<p>Before writing this post I searched Meta for "analysis" and found this question. It left me puzzled. The tag was suggested by @AdamO in July 2015. The post got only one comment and it was rather critical. There were no answers. The post did get three upvotes and no downvotes, but three upvotes seem to me to be only a meagre support.  However, @AdamO went on to create the tag, wrote a detailed wiki, re-tagged a whole bunch of older questions, and by now there are 171 threads in this tag.</p>

<p>Was there perhaps some discussion elsewhere that I cannot find?</p>

<p>The wiki excerpt says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For questions dealing with the applied analysis of a specific dataset or design of experiment. Posts tagged analysis are requesting statistical consulting assistance from the network. Questions tagged analysis need to be phrased appropriately.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We have tens of thousands of questions "requesting statistical consulting assistance", not 171. The tag is an obvious meta tag, and I don't see any benefit from it. People use this tag whenever they are writing a question about any "analysis", be it principal component "analysis", partial least squares "analysis", regression "analysis", etc.</p>

<p><strong>I downvoted the question and suggest to burninate this tag.</strong></p>
