Fred, as I've already noted, the offending comment
was apparently
*not*eliminated from the final tally of the votes made by George
Chernilevsky,
though omitting it would not have changed the outcome of the vote.
Nepenthe
It should not have been considered. That is our standard practice with
inane "reasons".
In the background is the question of whether something should have been
"done". What would be appropriate? A private note, a note on the users
talk page? A warning? Removal of the remark from the discussion? Deletion
of the edit? Suppression of the edit? Perhaps a discussion of the remark
at the Village Pump on Commons?
We do have a deletion reason WP:RD2
Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no
encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living
people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive
material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual
statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct
accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are
deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move
logs.
I think this falls within "ordinary incivility", but someone might have a
different opinion.
Fred