Laisha, selective quotation can change the meaning of people's posts.
In the case of rfgdxm1
The guidelines have specific rules about what an editor can not use as a basis for rejection, such as commercial self-interest, or personal or political bias. However, if none of that is an issue, there is nothing in the guidelines that says the editor can't use discretion and just say "this site sucks".
which was also further explained by subsequent posts.
In the case of John_Caius
If you look in the newly created category for this hot health topic, you will see high quality health sites like the World Health Organisation advice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice and links to news articles from the major news sources on the development of this health story. The site in question was not providing unique content. Building a site like this in the hope of quick traffic and quick profit is not something the ODP supports. A similar situation occurred relatively recently on the Resource Zone board when a site was built quickly to cash in on the sudden death of a major pop star.
which was once again explained further later.
Your thesis that editors may be deleting sites because of reasons other than the guidelines may be arguable and even correct. But to base it on selective quotation is specious and, IMO, is not supported by these cases.