:* I drafted an different reply to your note above.  But I decided the best course today is to request userification of the article and its talk page.

 The nominator, and a large fraction of those who voiced a "delete" opinion, apparently felt it was appropriate to make extensive excisions to the article  while it was before .  This is what I meant by "informationectomies and referencectomies".  Our policies don't specifically prohibit this behavior, but I think it is a terrible idea, because it is best for the project for those who think the article should be kept to be allowed a free hand to try to address whatever concerns were voiced in the .  

 I think that it is terribly erosive of the general store of collegiality, civility and good will we should all aim to maintain, when those in the delete camp edit war in articles while they are before , and should confine themselves to voicing their concerns in the .  As I wrote in the , even if, for the sake of argument, everyone but those in the keep camp felt the keep case was hopeless, those in the keep camp will feel the  was fatally disrupted by this kind of edit warring.  Whereas, if the delete camp are disciplined enough to refrain from interfering with the efforts of the keep camp, in the actual article.  If they can keep their hands off the article everyone, including those in the keep camp, can't speculate that the article would have been kept, if it hadn't been for the edit warring.

 Anyhow, due to their disruptive efforts, the article, when deleted, was not at its best state, when you closed the discussion.  If you reversed yourself, and restored the article to article space, it would probably be nominated, a second time, almost right away.  If and when it is restored to article space I would prefer to defend a version of the article that shows no echo of the disruptive edits of those in the delete camp.