::Thanks for the kind words. I admit I probably overreacted. I started 3 threads (not including the one on Akradecki's page) in response to that deletion. I was surprised that contested speedies had to taken to DRV, since they seemed more technically-based than proposed deletions. "Blatant advertising" seems a bit subjective, which speedy critera are not supposed to be according to the 3 criteria listed at the top of WT:CSD. Still, I suppose DRV works OK. In the long-run, articles which deserve to get written will get written and stay around. Also, I did put up a request for userfication and nobody userfied it. At least two of the deletions being discussed were just requests to userfy. It bothers me when admins are so inconsiderate that they won't even let the users have the information they wrote back. I had to deal with that when I posted a comment on a BioMed article this past summer. Five and a half months and they wouldn't review or publish the comment or even give it back to me, until I started threatening to raise a stink and emailed their new parent, Springer. Allegedly, open-access relies on "the community" to review articles, but apparently BioMedCentral doesn't like it when the community points out major errors. |  -