:Thank you anyway for your comment.
You know, I think contributors on wp:en are a little bit naieve...
The reasons behind the fact that it is claimed these are not votes but discussions and that votes are not counted is to promote discussions above all (and that is good).
BUT when you arrive at the level of a "proposal of deletion" or eg in the ArbCom process, people vote and then, the reason behing the fact it is claimed these are not vote but -again- discussion is to give the opportunity to admins to "stop" a cabal or a group of power.
And in practice, given they are admins with all pov's, they have to "count" the votes.

This lead to the following inconsistence  ArbCom suggest some editors would not have the right to edit these pages (given it is not a vote). How can it be good for the encyclopaedia to prevent people to give arguments explaining a matter ? Who is punished ? Them or the encyclopaedia...