You'd be surprised on just how close to an accurate prediction this was. The article about one of the most prominent lawyers in the USA, who led the civil prosecutions of Boesky and Milken, was deleted after next to no discussion, over the objections of my husband (who pointed out hundreds of news citations verifing both the notability of the individual and the accuracy of the article (nearly ne hundred from the New York Times alone). The administrator who closed the discussion shortly after my husband posted responded by not only dismissing his points (even though no one else actually made a substantive argument), but launched into a gratuitous personal attack on him as deceptive, and falsely characterized the references he provided; then, after my husband gave a restrained (if rather annoyed) response, refused to provide any substantive response, and castigated him for incivility and personal attacks for, among other things. "impugning" the administrator's "reasoning." Then one of the admin's began posting rather rude messages on his talk page. And that about sums thing up for Wikipedian discussion these days. It's uncivil and insulting to point out that someone has made a flawed argument. It's uncivil and a personal attack to point out that an administrator has made obvious factual errors. I doubt you'll see my husband editing any more. He'd amused himself by actually cleaning the garbage out of various biographies of living people, bu got little out of it but harassment, three increasingly nasty rounds of it. But so it goes. I told him when he began devoting time to Wikipedia that he'd soon enough have the experience made unpleasant by a thin-skinned, poorly informed, opinionated soul who viewed expertise and competence with hostility, and he was. So it goes. Gregory Maxwell wrote: In a recent discussion on the Wiki someone made a proposal which began "In the case of biographies of living people, where a number of editors have expressed the opinion either (...)". One of the outspoken critics of the general class of proposal began his retort "First, what is 'a number'? As a mathematician I'll tell you that 0 is a number." Now, I didn't particularly support this proposal either, ... but I'm not about to argue that zero users fits the proposed criteria. In the same general set of proposals there were a couple of people earnestly arguging that some change to AfD closure procedure could be expected to result in the deletion of [[George W. Bush]] and [[Bill Clinton]].