Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 26

On 22:07, 28 May 2007, Phil Sandifer deleted all existing revisions of this article and restarted it as a stub, allegedly because "months of edits... contained a keyword used to search for child pornography, labeled as such". Sandifer asserts that "Because of the GFDL's requirement for article history" he "could not keep a current version with that line deleted..." Talk:Child_pornography#Restarted. However, instead of deleting all revisions of the article, Phil Sandifer should have only deleted the first revision containing the offending keyword, and all versions subsequent to it, preserving all previous revisions, and their GFDL-required attribution. The hard work of the numerous users researching and writing this article should not be gratuitiously destroyed. KevinJames9872 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Overturn looks like a very stupid thing to do. But is DRV the right forum for this?  Grue  18:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Issues of whether DRV is the proper forum to review this matter (or, indeed, of whether the deleted revisions met any CSD), are far less important than the substantive question of whether all revisions of the article prior to 22:07, 28 May 2007 should remain deleted. KevinJames9872 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think anyone with a bit of common sense will agree that it is inappropriate to nuke the article because of the single word contained within it. What was wrong with having it in deleted revisions? The mind boggles.  Grue  18:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Overturn per nom. ugen64 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, every revision including and before 23:56 25 January 2006 should be restored. ugen64 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is correct that only revisions subsequent to this time contained the keyword, I would not oppose undeleting the history prior to that point and merging it into the current article. WjBscribe 19:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn DRV is appropriate here, as it amounted to deleting the article. DGG (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse. Wikipedia should not assist people in searching for child pornography. The article contained too many revisions including the term. To remove only those would have been impractical and would have caused GFDL problems (as revisions that added content, and kept the problem term) would also be lost. I cannot say strongly enough that undeleting these revisions is totally unacceptable. We cannot allow ourselves to be hijacked as a conduit for codewords that would enable someone new to find material on child pornography. WjBscribe 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Restore everything before the first insertion of that child porn search term, with every edit made thereafter kept deleted -- we could go through each edit and find the term, but that's infeasible. However, by keeping everything before the first insertion, at least some hard work gets to stay. MessedRocker (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but possibly restore all history up to first insertion of search term. I endorse Phil's reason for deleting the history (I would've done it myself if I'd known about it), but I see no reason why the history prior to the insertion of the term can't be restored, per Messedrocker. --Coredesat 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't have too much of a problem with this option but are we sure that we can accurately find the first revision that contained the problematic content? WjBscribe 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  It might take some digging, but it can probably be found. If we can't, though, the stubification is good enough that it could be left alone. --Coredesat 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per Coredesat... only if possible though. Better to be safe than sorry. Majorly (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, undelete all prior revisions - I find the original action treading on rather shaky ground as per WP:NOT#CENSOR. Objectionable, offensive, perhaps downright distasteful - but still encyclopedic. The only argument I can find for not including the word of doom would be that including it somehow violates the law in Florida. --Action Jackson IV 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn all revisions and wtf. Since when is "contains a (perfectly legal) 'codeword'" a criteria for speedy deletion? Wikipedia is not censored. Sure, including the term is in poor taste; by all means remove it from the current revision but leave the history alone. Evouga 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Erm actually there is also "basic common decency" and "wikipedia is not a platform for facilitating pedophilia". The presence of codeworks that facilitate people obtaining images generated though child abuse is abhorant. Our not censored policy is not a suicide pact. WjBscribe 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Strangely enough I don't see those on WP:CSD either. Evouga 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well in that case lets ignore those! Lets act totally irresponsibly... Admins are charged with making judgmental calls beyond the letter of the criteria - they are not robots. In this case, Phil showed a lot of Clue and acted in the very best interests of Wikipedia. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are policy for a reason... WjBscribe 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close. This is the wrong forum for this and should go to arbcom - I will respeedy this if overturned through any other forum. Phil Sandifer 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, but I am looking through the revisions to see where it first appeared. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  The content first appeared in the following revision:

  20:14, January 25, 2006 . . SPUI (Talk | contribs | block) (Commercial production and distribution - merge from Child pornography search terms, as that's going to be deleted)

  Of the 1385 deleted edits, about 450 were made before this addition. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Re-opened inappropriate closure by related party. From WP:AC - "it [ArbCom] is a last resort". The closing reasons in full from User:Phil Sandifer were "Because of the reason for deletion, this is not a matter for deletion review, and certainly not one to consider on the listing of an obvious sockpuppet. Please appeal to the arbcom or not at all. However, if somebody wants to restore to the January 2006 version mentioned by SPUI, I will not overturn that. Phil Sandifer 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC) – Phil Sandifer 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)" -81.178.126.124 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'd also like to prematurely say that I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone. Please feel free to do a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser on me if you don't believe me -81.178.126.124 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctantly endorse. Normally I strongly oppose this kind of heavy-handed unilateral action by admins; most deletions (except for legitimate CSDs) should take place only with discussion and consensus. However, as said above, Wikipedia should not help people to search for child pornography. This is a fundamental ethical question, which, IMO, is a sufficient reason for circumventing normal procedures. Walton^One 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Closing note: Per [1], further dispute of this deletion should be addressed to ArbCom. Revisions prior to the first that contained the term may be restored. WjBscribe 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

This is not to rehash the arguments over whether BJAODN should exist or not, but a very specific question about whether the MfD closure was proper and in accordance with consensus. I believe it was not - firstly, it is very clear on reading that there was no consensus of any kind, even those that agreed on one position or another weren't agreeing with each other. Furthermore, the unilateral decision to move the main page to "Silly Things" by the closing admin not only did not have any consensus, but wasn't discussed or even raised, and smells somewhat of ruling from above. I would not have acted had this not become the basis of a potential move war, using the MfD closure as a basis to proceed in a direction which the community would not have even anticipated. I think everyone said what they had to about BJAODN in the original MfD, so there is no need for this to become yet another debate about it, and once debate is concluded here, that matter can hopefully be put to rest. Orderinchaos 15:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• It should surprise nobody that this was one of the hardest closes I've ever done as an administrator. And, as Orderinchaos points out, there were elements of the close that did not come up in the MfD - the list of pages spared was entirely my own, and the moving of the page in order to forcibly deprecate and make the point that BJAODN as we know it ought not return was not proposed by anyone. However, as I said in the close, there was no possibility of a close that would satisfy everybody, or even necessarily satisfy most people. I do believe that I closed the MfD in a way that gave proper respect to all factions of the community on this issue. In a case as vexed as this, that is as close to consensus as can be hoped for. Phil Sandifer 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, while I voted keep, I can see that the most ideal close involves losing most of the pages, and the option to salvage the "special" ones was a good call. Orderinchaos 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Seeing as that seems the easy way out of more drama. Moreschi ^Talk 15:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• BJAODN this deletion review — oh, wait ... Cyde Weys 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Dis-Endorse Close - Overturn and Relist Twenty Years 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any reasons for wanting this? --Cyde Weys 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Apart from the fact that i think without it, wikipedia is losing all sense of charm, no, not a single reason. Twenty Years 16:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia though, not a charmpedia. I don't see what a sense of charm has to do with it. It was established during the MFD that the existence of BJAODN was having negative repercussions on vandalism. Anyway, the "best of" subpages are still around, and those are much higher quality than the original spread out subpages anyway. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
        • "Encyclopedia" is a one-word descriptor. Let's not give too much weight to a single word, which cannot possibly facilitate the retention of 2 million very different articles. BJAODL was the only page of its kind, and policies, mission statements, etc. generally are not modified to account for single pages; making the occasional exception makes much more sense. The page was also located in Wikipedia-space, and you will find close to zero articles in Wikipedia-space which would be found in an encyclopedia. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Something being the only page of its kind and being in project space does not make it immune to deletion just because. --Coredesat 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I didn't say that it did. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close, close this Ah, the inevitable has come but there is no way this will turn into anything other than a nasty, ugly mess of no consensus. GDonato (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why should we endore a close that violated policy, this "silly things" wasnt even mentioned in the MfD, yet content from BJAODN was moved from there to "silly things"? Twenty Years 16:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Because we're the cabal - oops, sorry. More seriously, perhaps because the close violated no policy? Moreschi ^Talk 16:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • So where in the MfD was "Silly things" mentioned?Twenty Years 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
        • If that's the only thing that concerns you then perhaps WP:RFD is more suitable. Do you disagree with the colsure of the MfD as "basically delete"? GDonato (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I disagree with many things, but this is low on my priority list, i just liked the page. Twenty Years 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. For the record, Sandifer scooped me on closing that MfD by just a few minutes. My close would have been similar: I would have acknowledged that the community expressed very significant concern over the copyright issue (which Sandifer dismissed) but otherwise, action-wise, I agree with Sandifer on all the important points... and we have to realize that, as he said, no close was going to satisfy everyone. Mangojuice^talk 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure GFDL violations and a shrine to vandals -- this kind of stuff is more important than "we need moar humor". Also, while I disagree with the renaming to Silly Things, I think that was done independently of any MFD. MessedRocker (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse BJAODN is an oasis for GFDL vios, and seems to be something of an apex for vandals if they are included. It needs to go. –Animum 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Whoever closed it knew full well that whoever closed the MFD would be immediately reviewed here on DRV. Phil's closure while not 100% what I wanted, does do the job.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Why are we doing this again?? --ST47Talk·Desk 17:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close - I presented my reasons for believing that whilst GFDL was not a concern, BJAODN was sadly, best let go of. I felt that User:Phil Sandifer's closing statement was a good reflection of the matter, and acknowledge many liked those pages, and community fun is a Good Thing. This review is not about BJAODN but about the process though. There are only two issues here at DRV that I'm aware of:

1. First DRV concern: The purpose of process is to ensure matters have a good hearing, and that the community has at least spoken enough to have some representative sense of the views. With some 8 or 10 discussions, and much activity over the last 2 weeks, there can be little doubt that the majority of those who track BJAODN or are interested in expressing an opinion have had good chances to do so, and those who wished to have spoken. If not all, then surely enough to be taken as reasonably representative of the community in their views. This was after all the 2nd listing in that short time after the mass deletion and 1st DRV of 14th August. So the first thought is, the community (or a large part of those who wish to) has stated its views and had fair chance to do so. The raw views posted at MFD are probably fairly comprehensive and representative, and the views listed there probably do represent the range and the balance of views in the community. So my first thought is, I don't think another xFD is needed to obtain more or different views. I think it's likely we have successfully obtained wide and representative consultation.
2. Second DRV concern: is the close a fair one that is based upon and takes into account the full range of MFD comments left by these editors? And here I think it is. The close is a good one; the issues in discussion do come down to personal like on one side, and consistency with Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on the other. It's a tough call but concerns over possible negative impacts of BJAODN on the project (glorification of vandalism etc) sadly probably do override the keep views of the humor pages, as the closer says. If there was a strong majority of keep/like at MFD, then I would say there was a doubt - but in fact upon checking I find there isn't. For whatever reason the (slightly stronger? much stronger? stronger either way) view on the MFD seems to also be leaning towards deletion, and these often cite and reflect editors' concerns of genuine issues - GFDL, promotion of vandalism, etc, as well as a fair number of IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly a number see them as non funny and a problem/embarrassment/policy issue for the wiki.

Conclusion: the MFD has surely been seen by enough of the community for the views stated to represent communal views. Those views lead to the closer's accurate comment: ILIKEIT vs. concerns over impact on the the project (whether vandalism incitement, policy/gfdl issues, or poor/embarrassing reflection on the site). The closer has (probably wisely) set aside GFDL !delete concerns as being outside the community's expertize, and instead balances concerns over possible negative impact on the encyclopedia against humor value... and there is no strong majority of KEEPers to set against this, as might be relevant to (what is at the end of the day) basically a set of community humor pages. In fact there seems to be a majority for deletion. Probably poorly worded here, but that's the view I obtain of this close. BJAODN has borderlined it a few times; the consensus seems to be based of good quality wide consultation, and a conclusion that in the eyes of the community the concerns are real, significant, and enduring. To close on a basis that "it's good humor" doesn't outweigh that, seems a reasonable view. So for me, I endorse. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please, make it stop!! - I mean Endorse closure. While I'm not sure about the move to Silly Things, I could care less about that. The closure though was quite good. It took into concern the thoughts of the deleton advocates and kept some parts intact to appease the keep-ers. End this now (not immediately, but with this DRV), so we can finally move on. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, particularly the move to Wikipedia:Silly things (who capitalized the T?). Time to set things aside and move on. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I suspect the T is capitalized because, in contrast with how we normally name pages, capitalizing it is a Silly Thing. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse much of the close, but undelete the Wikipe-tan Temple page, the Poop Egg page, and other special pages that are better off in categories other than BJAODN. Wikipe-tan Temple and the other special pages are examples of Wikipedia humor and belongs in a Wikipedia humor section, not the trash bin. Also, include a link to bjaodn.nicholaswwilson.com on the historical BJAODN page. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the closer failed to take into account that there were no valid arguments for deletion except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Grue  18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "It encourages vandalism" is not "I don't like it." Phil Sandifer 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good reason to undelete though. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Please tell me we are not doing this again. Valid close, good reading of the debate. It "encourages vandalism" trumps "I like it". I also think there are GFDL reasons that should be taken into account and think the closer was wrong in not factoring those in, but as those also point towards deletion that only further vindicates the outcome in my opinion. WjBscribe 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Main page encourages vandalism. Let's delete it too. This is a very weak argument, and shouldn't be used to delete popular metapages.  Grue  19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctantly endorse deletion. Grue's argument is a very good one, though. Whether I like it or not is not important here: process was valid and followed properly. --SunStar Net ^talk 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• overturn if there is one thing clear at MfD, it's that there is no consensus at WP about these articles. We await a genius who can figure out how to solve it this one.DGG (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I knew this was coming. The close was very well-reasoned and I see nothing wrong with it. The vast majority of "overturns" are WP:ILIKEIT, and the fact that BJAODN encourages vandalism does not equate to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let the thing stay dead; after all, I thought we were here to create an encyclopedia? --Coredesat 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion While true copyright problems clearly trump any numbers, Phil is right that MfD is a lousy place to evaluate them. On the other hand, I fully agree that WP:DENY trumps WP:ILIKEIT even in project space. I don't think that a general DRV is the best place for dealing with exceptions or minor issues such as renaming. It is better to hash those out at individual talk pages. Eluchil404 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per above... Majorly (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Partial Overturn. Leave the deleted content deleted, but remove the prejudice against restarting BJAODN with proper attribution. The GFDL concern was the primary non-essay (WP:ILIKEIT and WP:DENY) objection to BJAODN, and there was no consensus against restarting BJAODN if this concern were addressed. Evouga 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Saying that moving the page to "Silly things" was required by the MfD is stupid, but resolving the name issue doesn't require DRV. -Amarkov moo! 21:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse overall; reserve the right to DRV individual subpages later. I think the closing admin did deviate from typical process somewhat, but that is perfectly fine, and in this case, I think it was for the better. I think he did very well to cut through the GFDL/copyright debate (which was very confused), and correctly identified the real problem: BJAODN had become a "monument to vandalism", and that was Not Good for Wikipedia. I think his overall decision (delete most of it; rename to highlight) was the best overall decision for Wikipedia as a whole. A good compromise leaves everyone equally unhappy; this is it. • I put in the "reserve the right to DRV individual subpages" bit because I think there may be some stuff worth salvaging, but this is not the time or the place for that discussion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Empornium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD 1|AfD 2|AfD 3)

I realize there was probably consensus to delete the article, but here some sources giving significant coverage - Link1, Link2, Link3, Link4 Corpx 05:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• As deleted, the article contained no sources. A rewrite with sources might fare better, and the addition of sources to address the cause for deletion should exempt it from CSD G4. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• The sources brought up in the latest AfD were thin; Corpx's are slightly better. However, since it seems there is no coverage of Empornium not related to the Targetpoint takeover/controversy, I'm dubious that there will be enough to really write an article. That said, if someone wants to try, I would suggest trying in userspace first, and starting from scratch to ensure verifiability (the former version seems to have included lots of stuff not in the sources). Mangojuice^talk 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn it seems clear that this article was deleted simply by attrition (3rd time lucky). Several sources were presented over the course of 3 AfDs, so there's no point in keeping it deleted.  Grue  18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, consensus at AfD was clear, and at least three of the "sources" brought up are from p2pnet. I see no indication that p2pnet undergoes fact-checking or editorial control, or meets any other standards of a reliable source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - no reliable sources, no article. Moreschi ^Talk 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but feel free to recreate the article for which the deletion arguments are not valid without having a deletion review. Atropos 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edison Medal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Appears to have been deleted with zero discussion. There were over 50 incoming links. I only discovered it when a redirect I created to the article was being deleted. Speedy deletion is becoming a back door way to delete articles without any oversight or consensus at all. No discussion is required, and no oversight is in place. There needs to be some sort of review or you need to have at least three admin people vote to have a speedy. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close as moot. Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs), the deleting administrator, has restored the article, and his comment at Talk:Edison medal implies he is content for the article to remain. Speedies are tolerated, in part, because they are easy to reverse. Richard should comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy if he is not happy with the current deletion process. EdJohnston 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that's true, but it should be said that in this case deletion was plainly inconsistent with CSD; medals, except where articles about them exist exclusively to advertise a sanctioning body/company, are not A7able. Joe 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

:Current Opinion in Biotechnology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Current Opinion in Cell Biology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Current Opinion in Chemical Biology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Current Opinion in Genetics & Development (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Current Opinion in Pharmacology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Current Opinion in Neurobiology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Current Opinion in Plant Biology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Current Opinion in Structural Biology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reasons for deleting it were completely ignored--all were created as ads by single purpose accounts over a period of two days, main article listing all exists. KP Botany 00:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't decide to "Keep" I decided not to speedy delete. There is a world of difference. Yes the sub articles were created by the company, but note that the main article was not. Even though a spammer created the page i felt that they might still be useful to the encylopedia. It seems silly to speedy delete pages a year after they were created. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question What difference does it make if the crap was not detected for a year? It doesn't make it legitimate. It was only caught because Elsevier just did the same thing with another series of journals today. That they got away with it once, and it was only caught when they proceeded to do it again does not change it from an advertisement to a real article. The articles themselves don't assert their own notability--which is probably why they weren't caught for so long. KP Botany 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close - this is not the place to appeal the removal of speedy tags - the editor should, if they wish, pursue deletion by means of a Prod or AfD. TerriersFan 00:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually Theresa Knott said I could appeal, and so does the Speedy page. What is our alternative source for saying otherwise? KP Botany 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • All I wanted you to do, was take it to AFD. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - there is an appeal here against the speedy deletion of an article not against the removal of a speedy tag which happens numerous times per day. As I say above, either Prod them or take them to AfD, as you judge appropriate. TerriersFan 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Why take it to AfD when I can have the deletion reviewed? The article's are so useful that even though they contained content of issues a year old, no one noticed. It's the April 2006 issue of Current Opinion in Cell Biology, for example, that has an article on "Cell division, growth and death," not the April 2007 issue, which leads off with an article on "Cell regulation: Cellular signaling." Why make me argue for deleting them, when the editors didn't bother to do anything but add them, added the same text to a bunch of articles, and no one has noticed that it has articles over a year old listed in the articles? And I'm not protesting the deletion of the speedy tag, but rather the failure to speedy them. Theresa's argument is spurious, there is no incentive to keep crap on Wikipedia due to age--old stuff that should have been caught earlier is deleted all of the time. This is just an attempt to give a spammer a break--an obvious spammer that used sock puppets. I notice no administrators care about all the sock puppet accounts that went into creating this articles, just about making me do tons of useless work to delete them.KP Botany 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is for reviewing deletions. There has been no dleletion or even a deletion debate. All that happened was that I renmoved some speedy tags you added. And quite frankly you constant statement that I want ot give a spammer a break is bloody rude. I've blocked more spammers than you've ad 'ot dinners.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your only evidence that you offer that these are not spammers is the length of time they have been up on Wikipedia. But there is no criterion on Wikipedia anywhere that something that should never have been on Wikipedia in the first place (generally candidates for speedy deletion) should be kept because it has been there for a long time. It didn't gain anything by being here for longer than it should have been, except for possibly more free adverisements for the spammers. KP Botany 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, the reason you didn't send it to AFD is you can't work out how to do it. If you weren't being to nasty to me I'd help you do it, but I'm not going to discuss it here at deletion review. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You told me "If you feel that strongly about it ask another admin for a review."[2] And now you're insulting me here and on AN/I for not being able to do an AfD. I know that AfD is NOT where I get "another admin for a review," this is where I get another administrator to review a deletion. You misdirected me and are now mocking me for following your misdirection, so to come up now and tell me that if I had been nicer you would have helped me is not something I choose to believe. KP Botany 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)