List of digital television stations in Canada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Was deleted with the reason "not a helpful presentation of this information; digital channel numbers should be integrated directly into provincial lists, not a special list to themselves", with no evidence of discussion, consensus, and I am not sure that's a candidate for speedy deletion either. ViperSnake151 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Every television station in Canada will be broadcasting in digital by 2011, which is when the cutoff date for the end of analog broadcasting in Canada is scheduled. About 90 per cent of them already have the channel assignments in place. There's already a column for the digital channel assignment in each of the "List of television stations in (PROVINCE)" lists. It duplicates the existing articles in a way that Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations has never felt necessary for any other country's television stations — in other words, there quite simply isn't any need for it. Bearcat ( talk) 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, nothing in the CSD or deletion policies allows this deletion. Stifle ( talk) 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Stifle - that's an admin opinion, not a criteria for deletion. It can go to AfD if necessary. TravellingCari 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse it was deleted 2 months ago and it stands a SNOWBALL's chance at AfD. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 16:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Do you have a link to the AfD? This is the only time this specific article has been deleted and the article has been around since May 07.-- Smashville ^talk 18:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Hroðulf did not say that there's already been an AFD; he said that if subjected to AFD this article would fail the WP:SNOW rule. Specifically, see the part which states that if an article is speedily deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per Stifle since there was no CSD basis for the deletion. Some potentially related articles: List of digital television deployments by country, Melbourne digital television technical parameters, and Red Button (digital television). -- Suntag ☼ 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

None of those are parallel to this. List of digital television deployments by country is a misnamed article about where the regulatory aspects of digital conversion stand in different countries, Melbourne digital television technical parameters is a list of the technical aspects of the specific digital transmitters operating in Melbourne which is at best unlikely to survive the current AFD, and Red Button (digital television) is an article about a particular feature of digital television sets. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - per Stifle. No valid CSD basis. -- Smashville ^talk 18:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion and list to AfD. The page seems to me to be a pretty indiscriminate directory listing (a violation of WP:NOT) and I doubt that it will survive AfD but it clearly did not meet any of the deliberately narrow CSD criteria. Rossami (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Under WP:SNOW, there's no real reason either to create or to restore an article that can never be anything more than a duplication of existing content. Canadian television is not and never will be divided into separate classes of digital and non-digital broadcasters. The only distinction that exists is "stations whose digital transmitters have already begun operation" and "stations whose digital transmitters will be coming online in 2009 or 2010" (a group which encompasses every single television station that isn't part of the first group), and we don't need a list for that. The list provides no information that isn't already present in other articles. It's organized on the basis of a distinction that only temporarily excludes some stations from the list, as every single television station in Canada is already in the process of converting to digital transmission. And its title isn't even particularly useful as a redirect anywhere. As such, it's simply an unnecessary content fork which serves no real purpose. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Natalie Portman's Shaved Head (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Also natalie portman's shaved head; both titles were protected after multiple A7's (the silly name probably didn't help). Requesting unsalting based upon the metric tons of press the band has gotten - e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], etc; there's more in Google News. Chubbles ( talk) 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt and allow recreation per Chubbles' references, there's enough independant, significant coverage to build an article. I don't know what the latest versions of those articles contained, restoring the histories might be useful then, too. -- Amalthea ^Talk 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow Recreation Looks like there's some good 3rd party sources now.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of iconic smokers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

AFD was No Consensus admin did not have authority to delete 204.52.215.93 ( talk) 03:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This was a misunderstanding. The original AFD was under an old page title. The page was moved to List of famous smokers and later deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination). The deletion log for List of iconic smokers is from some later half-hearted attempts to start a page at the original title that only contained one or two names. Please look at the discussion linked above and then decide whether filing a Deletion Review is appropriate.-- chaser - t 07:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Emergenetics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

According to the Afd guidelines, the discussion should be done to form a concensus. With 5 keeps and 6 deletes, it's clear that there was no consensus, yet the page was deleted. Ordinarily, I wouldn't even necessarily object to that, but I believe in the case of a lack of concensus, the admin doing the delete should explain the reasoning. In this case, all that was given was "The result was delete". It's clear that I was on the "Keep" side after doing a fair bit of reading on the subject, so I ask that someone completely uninvolved with the situation take an unbiased look. Kickstart70 T C 03:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse deleteAmong the keep arguments were the award of the unimportant " Colorado Business Woman of the Year" to the founder, and the amazing "The references cited, precisely because they are not all about Emergenetics, support the policy of 'Neutral point of view'," -- these were properly discounted. The parts of the article that were justified were, indeed, about psychometrics in general, or about other tests, and nothing notable was shown about this product. Two of the keeps were spa's. A proper close. DGG ( talk) 14:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse Of the five keeps, three were SPAs (with five contribs between them). Another keep was based on the number of references, rather than their quality, and the other on an "it's useful" rationale. Four of the deletes were based on the analysis of, and searches, for, independent reliable sources, and the other two deletes were based (partially or wholly) on concerns that the article constituted spam. In addition to the six Deletes, there was one Redirect based on non-notabilty. I'm having to fill in the gaps because the closing statement was brief, but it reads to me like a sound closure and well within deletion policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure as only possible outcome. The keep arguments are very weak, and consensus is not a vote-count. It is true that a closing statement would have been nice, but I don't consider it terribly necessary in this case as the decision was actually fairly obvious. I've notified the closer of this DRV. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse Closing admin here, there were 7 deletes, 5 keeps, and 1 redirect. Some of the keeps tended towards OtherStuffExists and "meets policy", without showing how it met policy. The deletes presented more detailed views of policy. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Withdraw: Upon further review, you are right. I still think my (even a little too exhaustive) reading of webpages discussing and using this tool did prove notability, but clearly that's just proving it to me. Would still have liked a more complete deletion reason, but I'm not gonna push that point. Thanks for all of your efforts (including the closing admin, of course). -- Kickstart70 T C 03:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Bruno Masse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I contest the notion that this discussion shows consensus to delete the article, and propose that the close be overturned. Closer Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs · count) stands by their decision, on the grounds that the delete proponents (nominator + weak delete from DGG ( talk · contribs)) had the superior argument. So this DRV is a test of the competing principles of closer as consensus-assessor and closer-as-judge. the skomorokh 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my close, even if there weren't the issues of canvassing here, AfD is not a vote. Skomorokh has really not come up with any other reason that my close was incorrect other than not counting heads, to which I freely admit—AfD is a discussion based upon strength of argument. In addition to this, two of the "keep" arguments were made by those who were canvassed, and another one by an account with few edits. In the remaining arguments, DGG and Amalthea's concerns regarding sources were never really refuted, certainly not by anyone pointing out substantive source material. Nor did Skomorokh do so when asked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Again, you conflate assessing consensus with counting heads. Strawman. the skomorokh 03:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Hmm. Let's be fair here. What is the operational rule for administrators in closing controversial discussions? In the absence of unanimous consent or overwhelming consensus, what do we do? How, in those cases, do we "assess consensus"? Protonk ( talk) 05:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • In such a case, the admins' deletion guidelines indicate that we should evaluate rough consensus (including properly weighting opinions that were potentially canvassed or from possible single purpose accounts), to be impartial (i.e. to not close an AfD in an article one has been involved with), and to evaluate the basis in policy and fact of the arguments which have been presented. Generally, if one side has a strong policy and fact based argument, that is the side which will prevail. In this case, after looking at the discussion, the sources, and the article, it became clear that the "delete" arguments were based in policy and fact—the lack of substantive source material. The fact that this was never really refuted by those arguing to keep (which would have been as simple as presenting substantive and reliable sources) was also a substantial factor. That was the main determining factor. This was not an easy discussion to close, and did require thought and careful checking, but I do believe in the end I did come to the correct conclusion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse barring demonstration that there was a single reliable source that discussed the subject in significant depth. Consensus is reflected not just in a head-count at AFD, but also in the guidelines and policies that reflect the project's consensus in general.-- chaser - t 07:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as AfD nominator. I too think that no opinion to keep could show that the subject passed WP:N or any of the specialized notability guidelines that I checked, so per WP:DGFA#Rough consensus I think that this close was in accordance with policy. -- Amalthea ^Talk 11:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse many of the keeps amounted to, I know this guy and i like him. Given the canvassing, a reasonable close. But if better references to published material about his books can be found, no objection to recreating. To say my "weak delete" amounts to a keep would imply that I've been getting a rep as a rabid deletionist. DGG ( talk) 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment there does not seem to be a single "keep" which expresses a desire to save the article because the editor knows and likes the subject of the article. Instead, each states that they believe the sources are within the bounds of notability and verifiability; some say only barely so, but the point stands. What gives you the impression you've come to?-- Cast ( talk) 05:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Who is saying your weak delete "amounts to a keep"? Your - I'm sorry, tangentially relevant - comment regarding libraries was the only response in the AfD that called for deletion, and yet seems to have single-handedly justified a delete close. the skomorokh 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a reasonable closure; plus, if DGG recommends deletion, the article must be beyond all saving. Stifle ( talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Because if DGG says so, then it's got to be true. No need to double-check. In fact, no need to check even once. Don't go with the facts. Go with your gut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.91.10 ( talk • contribs)
• Comment - This is about the Canadian anarchists born in 1982. There seems to be no English Wikipedia reliable sources for Bruno Masse or www.bmasse.we.bs. The rejection of the sources used in the article as not being Wikipedia reliable sources seems reasonable. If there is information on this topic, it likely is in French and not easily accessible via the Internet. For there to be a Wikipedia article on this topic, someone likely will have to do some ground work finding print source material in Canada. -- Suntag ☼ 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose closure as there was no consensus. Per wikipedia policy, we don't need any English source, sources in French are the same as for any other language.-- Sum ( talk) 20:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Additionally, the voters in previous nominations were not advised of this deletion review, I came to know it by chance.-- Sum ( talk) 20:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Which source (in any language) justifies inclusion of this article? Please give us a specific citation or weblink. I'm amenable to changing my !vote.-- chaser - t 22:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. To answer the nominator's question at the top of this discussion, closers are not only allowed but required to validate that the opinions offered in a deletion discussion are based in fact, policy and precedent and to weight unsupported opinions appropriately. Deletion discussions have never been about nose-counting. That's why we explicitly don't vote on these matters. In this case, the closer's decision is in keeping with the demonstrated facts and Wikipedia's policies. I find no process problems in the debate and no evidence here or in the discussion to justify overturning the discussion. This was well within reasonable administrator discretion for a closure. Rossami (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I was one of the votes that was "canvassed", and would note that I explicitly stated in my rationale that I was voting to keep in spite of, not because of, that canvassing. The existing sources in the article were most certainly sufficient basis for a notability claim, and it's not incumbent upon me to provide a detailed analysis of each individual source. I'm not going to express an opinion one way or the other here, but I do feel the need to point out that under the rationale explained here, my !vote would likely have been discounted or ignored in spite of the fact that I already addressed every concern under which it would have been dismised. Bearcat ( talk) 22:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

So Good (TVB) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

After an administrator deleted an article believing that it is a website when it is a cooking show broadcasted on a national channel, I asked him to explain but he ignored me. I feel that that speedy deletion is completely misguided as I had limited knowledge about that program at the time, and that link will prove that the show does exist as well as this, plus somebody told me that there is a Chinese Wiki article about that show Banana Jim ( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• A few things are going through in my mind here. To start, this is rarely a good way to get someone's attention to fix a problem you have. Being polite will get you much farther. On whether or not to restore the article I'm of two minds. On the one hand, an A7 was invalid, as it cannot apply to television shows, and none of the other CSD applied. However, on the other, to be frank, the article sucked, and could simply not have survived an AfD in that form. If the solution is amiable to you, I believe the best way to resolve this is simply to write another version of the article that, put simply, doesn't suck. You might want to try looking at the featured article of the day to get a sense of what we'd like all our articles to look like, and you'll want to make sure you're following the necessary policies and guidelines. I've notified Deb of this DRV. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. While not strictly within the speedy deletion guidelines, this article has effectively no chance of surviving an AFD, so undeleting it only to redelete it five days later would be process wonkery. Speedy deletion isn't a permanent ban on anything ever existing at that title, however, so if you want to write another version of the article, as lifebaka suggests, go right ahead. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I admit I was mistaken in thinking this was web content. However, it does seem to me that there is little meaningful content in the article as it stood when I deleted it. Obviously I would have no objection to restoring it if the contributor felt they could make improvements to bring it up to standard. Deb ( talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Having seen the deleted content, there is nothing worth saving, so keep it deleted, without prejudice to a better article being written by someone who does not have only limited knowledge about the program, or who can find reliable sources showing notability before writing an article. Bencherlite ^Talk 03:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply