List of Philippine television specials aired in 2017 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Allow overturn the page and redirect to 2017 in Philippine television as well 38.96.9.224 (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If there has been no discussion with the closing admin, there is not a problem that needs review.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are we here? The request is to create a redirect. The AfD closing statement included, Any editor may feel free to also create the suggested redirects if desired. My brain hurts. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We are here because you asked a question in order to raise a controversy for the purpose of moving this discussion forward, instead of agreeing with me and closing the debate.  Any more questions?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The inference that "overturn to redirect" is in this case somehow the same as "delete and redirect" is not readily apparent, so the edit history needs to be restored for non-admins to consider the inference on its merits.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, because it in no way conflicts with what's actually being requested. An AFD does not have to explicitly close as "redirect" before a redirect is allowed to exist — if you want to create a redirect, then you can just go right ahead and create a redirect without needing the article to be restored or the AFD to be overturned. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no evidence offered that there is no conflict between an overturn to redirect, and the "delete and redirect" that is the only redirect currently possible without admin tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no evidence that there's any need for anything more than "delete and redirect that is the only redirect currently possible without admin tools." Is there any remotely substantive reason why "overturn to redirect" is even necessary, such as any actual reason why any part of the title's edit history needs to be returned to public visibility? There's no substantive conflict if one of the options in the conflict is entirely unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What you can see as an admin is not evidence until you make it available to non-admins.  As per WP:DRV#Temporary undeletion,

  ===Temporary undeletion===
  Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

  As an alternate to restoring the edit history and building consensus on the theoretical difference between the OP's proposition and the "delete and redirect" option; this DRV can be closed, as there is still no dispute identified by the closing admin to review.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing about the difference between the two possible ways of creating a redirect requires any part of the articles' edit histories to be made visible to non-admins. The only time that's necessary is if what's under discussion is whether the titles should be restored as standalone articles or not — but there's no reason why non-admins need to see the articles' edit histories in order to decide between "redirect" and "redirect". Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nowhere is this a discussion limited to the creation of a redirect.  We are talking about two redirects, each with an associated set of edit history data.  One set is the empty set, and the second you and Roy are implying is the equivalent of an empty set.  I don't want to speculate about a set of data I can't see.  I've requested the data set, and I've shown you the WP:DRV process which requests that you provide the data set.

  And we just finished having a similar discussion on another talk page.  I quoted WP:REDIRECT "Reasons for not deleting" #1 and #7.  Re-creating the page is only one of the 7 reasons listed for not deleting.  For example, at a recent AfD, I discovered an entire productive MfD discussion cited in the edit history.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore all four articles' history under redirects to 2013 in Philippine television, 2015 in Philippine television, 2016 in Philippine television, and 2017 in Philippine television.

  Supergabbyshoe, Oripaypaykim, and Pinespunned supported a redirect. Nominator Ajf773 also supported a redirect, writing, "Redirecting would be sufficient although I don't know what content would be suitable for merging." Lugnuts and Mrschimpf supported deletion.

  Since four editors supported a redirect and two supported deletion, I do not see consensus for deletion.

  The redirects' history is useful to allow editors to merge material to the television articles as Oripaypaykim (talk · contribs) suggested:

  I think redirect to 2013 in Philippine television, 2015 in Philippine television, 2016 in Philippine television does reconsidered each year-round, lets merge from their Lists of Philippine television specials aired to (year) in Philippine television.

  Deleting the redirects' history prevents merges from happening.

  Cunard (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn  Time has run, and my request to involve the closing admin as a priority has not been sustained.  My apologies to the closing admin.  Upon review of the AfD, I find that deletion was contrary to consensus, and the suggestion to make new redirects disregarded the intent of the voters who did not vote to delete.  One of the delete !votes was a "pernom", so had no weight.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as there was sufficient attention to the subject and, as usual, redirects can be started at any time, without consensus or input. Given these are indiscriminate lists that can easily be merged into one entire article, there's no immediate need for attention here. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was no consensus to keep the article and no strong arguments to retain the history: there certainly wasn't a consensus to merge anything. If anyone actually thinks these would be good redirects (which I'm not convinced of), they can create them without fear of deletion. As a nose count, you might have had a stronger case for redirect, but because those were essentialy JUSTAVOTEs, they should be weighted significantly less in the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]