As I pointed out earlier on the relevant Talk: page, Zero0000 made compelling arguments why the article should be kept. Unfortunately, he was the only "keep" voter who did so, and most of the rest of the "keep" arguments actually indicated why the article should be deleted. And the antics of one particular long-time editor and Keep voter, in trying to rig the vote page, then accusing some editors who have been on Wikipedia for months of being sockpuppets, then trying disqualify the Delete votes on the grounds that putting in some Google links to usage of the term meant the article had changed enough that their votes no longer applied, and finally to immediately putting it up for undeletion, have done the Keep side no good. Not quite. I'm not sure the exact mathematical formula for "consensus", but I figure it has something to do with number of editors, their contribution to Wikipedia, and how trusted they are. With that in mind, I did a little bit of obsessive statistical analysis on the vote, and discovered the following: The 49 Delete voters averaged 4759 edits each, and included 13 administrators (27%). On the other hand, the 27 Keep voters averaged 1715 votes each, and included only 2 administrators (7%). What if you pull out all the "questionable" votes? I don't know who is on that list you mention, but let's say we remove those voters with fewer than 75 edits? Well, you find that the remaining 43 Delete voters (30% of them administrators) averaged 5417 edits each, vs. 13 Keep voters (15% of them administrators) averating 3553 edits each. significant Wikipedia contributors to delete.