Take a look at the response you got, Verbal. All you had to do was look at my Evidence section at the time you posted that. It was not long, and this page was cited from that section. The editors who responded to you could have told you that, instead they responded with irrelevancies. Which was most of what was posted in that case! Who was responsible for notifying you? You already saw what was posted, and it had, you say, "inaccuracies." Since it was a draft and requested corrections, why didn't you simply respond as requested, at least pointing them out? Now you want to blame (who?) for not notifying you? Yes, I sympathize, that case became a monster, but only because hosts of editors  including yourself  came in with irrelevancies.   
(edit conflict) What a waste of time! Verbal templated me on my Talk page about this speedy, I responded there, please look for it if you need to see it, and above it was a discussion of his request, where I agreed to blank the page. However, when a page is created for and is cited in an RfAr, it is part of the RfAr unless ArbComm decides otherwise. Verbal saw this page then, this can be assumed from his following of the case and his comment in it. He had ample opportunity to correct errors, and this was actively requested on the case evidence page.
Another more general case page, also created in my user space, was MfD'd. (See Verbal's request on my Talk.) It was kept. No way should this page be speedied, and if it is, there will be DRV, based on the precedent, which will, of course, cause the page to be read by many. As it is now, only a very small number of people will read it. Blanked, it won't show up in searches. So ... what is this about?