I don't know if this is the place to argue over deleted posts, but since others have done it, I'm going to do the same. Though from a point of view of the rules and I will get to my deleted post at the end.
From the Site-Wide Rules and Guide to Rule-Breaking Consequences
[...]This also includes allegations or accusations of match fixing or result fixing in other sports. Evidence of unusual betting patterns are insufficent proof to publicy denigrate someone's reputation and will not be tolerated. When unusual betting patters occur, posters are, if they wish to, encouraged to post details of this, but without drawing inappropriate conclusions. If a specific allegation is levelled against a player or sportsperson by the appropriate governing body, this can be discussed, but posters should again remember that an allegation is not the same as a conviction.[...]
What does "the appropriate governing body" include? According to me discussions on all the following(at minimum) cases of alleged match fixing should be allowed:
1) The person in question has been proven guilty in a court of law for some form of match-fixing.
2) The person in question is currently in trial in a court of law for the same.
3) The person in question is currently under investigation(either from a police force/intelligence agency or the board of government of that sport) for the same.
Now a comprehensive fourth point(all applicable together):
4a) The person in question had a case against him involving fixing, though he was cleared due to insufficient evidence(6-8 months ago).
4b) Members of the countries board of government for that sport wanted the person in question to step down from his position of power due to his and his families involvement in a fixing scandal.(6-8 months ago)
4c) The person in question has had MANY corruption cases against him(including some present) relating to his business.
4d) There was a criminal complaint against the person in question for stealing money from the sporting board of government that he was the leader of, and for match-fixing. (2-3 months ago). Nothing further was informed to the public.
4e) The person in question is currently being referred to by media as the "future warlord" of the sport. (Last 2 days)
4f) Another (in)famous person in the sport has asked for the person in question to be "banned for life" from all bodies relating to the sport. (2 days ago).
My post, in The Cricket Thread(in Chat Threads), talked about situations falling under one of cases (1) to (3), including a video from a news channel discussing the same. I also talked about a possible cover up of a few players involvement which was also backed by the video, and by a report by a Supreme Court Judge of India(which also backed a few of my other statements). For the one person that I mentioned who didn't fall under (1), (2) or (3), every subpoint in (4) was applicable(and MANY MANY more such points, see link below). Yet, my post was deleted.
Due a recent change in administration(last 10 days) in the sport, the person who who falls under (4) above is going to be officially the most powerful man in the sport. Are we not allowed to talk about the implications of that?
This is the man, who 9 months ago(before all of point (4)) was called someone who was potentially "cricket's most destructive figure"
Or is it my duty to write this entire history every time I say something against him? If a major fixing case involving a few specific people has been on-going for close to a year(and many corruptions cases against some said people(including relating to cricket) over the last 3-4 years), I should not need to post links for every old development in the case. I had posted a link for the most recent development. If the moderator is not at least slightly well informed about the topic, (s)he should not get busy deleting posts.