" 

 == communist terrorism AfD == 

 We'll have to see how it plays out, of course, but...  I'm pretty sure you've just made matters worse and headed this straight down the road to arbitration.  I don't really care about the deletion itself (that was ScienceApologist's idea, and I was pretty much indifferent to it) but your addition about reverts has made it far more difficult for me to improve the page.  My tactic (in case you want to know) was to keep the article from being reverted whole-cloth to the 'long' (i.e. synthesis-filled) version and continually request case-by-case consideration of each source, forcing discussion of the contents and eventually ending up with an article (if any) that only contains properly sourced and considered material.  Now you've made it impossible for me to do the first part; it will just take one sockpuppet or meatpuppet to revert the contents (which you and I both know will happen).  once the old version is reasserted absolutely no one supporting the synthesis will show any inclination to discuss anything on the page at all.   

 You're putting me in the position where I have to decide whether it's worth the bother. I'm all about improving the encyclopedia, generally speaking, but if I have a block-threat hanging over my head if I try to remove unambiguous synthesis...  scr@w that - this topic isn't important enough to me to get blocked over. 

 Honestly, I think you got hoodwinked here: you bought into the lie/delusion.  This isn't a case of two differing view points struggling over the nature of a topic, this is a case of one side adamantly and unreasonably pushing original research.  this is easy to see from the discussion (there are lots of people saying things like ""there are many sources on this topic"", but none of them actually have been able to produce sources on the topic).  You did well by discounting all the irrelevant comments, but you fell back to a bean-counting vote for the main participants without actually examining the quality of their arguments 

 Pardon me for venting.  I don't mind the closure to keep the article, but the threat that I might get blocked for following policy ticks me off.   "