QUOTE(Hersfold @ 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC))
I also took count of the number of "invalid" arguments, these being comments that were simply "per XYZ" without adding additional information; additionally, some of the main arguments I listed above I consider to be invalid. "Tinderbox for BLP problems", for example, is not a reason to delete. Flagged revision is reputedly on its way, and in the meantime and even after that, protection can be used to stop any defamatory content from being added...
So if someone says their argument is essentially in agreement with someone else who posted earlier than they did, their vote was discounted...?
Also, the Flagged Revisions feature has been "reputedly" on its way for over three years now. Of course, it doesn't matter - this particular BLP is never going to mention the fact that he has uploaded dozens of hardcore gay pornography images to WP, or his relationship with pornographer Michael Lucas, or his tendency to disgustingly defame people on Encyclopedia Dramatica when he's challenged, criticized, or thwarted. It isn't going to mention his deviousness, his dishonesty, and his apparent sociopathic narcissism, nor is it going to indicate that the article itself is basically an autobiography.
Standard wikicult behavior, in other words. Forget the truth, forget what actually happened, just stick to the press release.