Wikipedia:Other crap exists ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I closed this as delete, but am preemptively opening this DRV with an eye on the impending closure of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS at RfD (most likely and rightfully as keep). I stand by my read of the consensus for WP:Other crap exists and subsequent close of that discussion, as well as my additional explanation offered at the second RfD (specifically, that I think it's quite reasonable for the full title and the shortcut to be treated differently). At any rate, given the divergence between participation between the two, I felt it worthwhile to open this for discussion. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Ping participants of RfD ( Atlantic306— Tavix— Thryduulf— Boneso— MrX— Wbm1058— JFG— Innisfree987) ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Ping participants of second discussion ( Ritchie333— Finnusertop— Steel1943— Godsy— Chris troutman— Jax 0677— SMcCandlish— Smartyllama) ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus as I suggested at the RfD for the other redirect. Essentially, views were split roughly half-in-half between "keep" and "delete", and neither set of arguments obviously had the upper hand in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus seems to be the larger consensus and to be consistent Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, period, per the keep WP:SNOWBALL at the other related discussion; per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY / WP:WIKILAWYER / WP:POINT / WP:Common sense; per the standard "redirects are cheap" overwhelming consensus at WP:RFD; and because the deletion just made a bunch of pointless redlink holes in various past discussions [1]. This is ultimately a WP:CONLEVEL matter. A "maaaybe we might delete this" micro-local quasi-consensus is meaningless in the face of an ongoing strong consensus in one particular direction at a well-attended XfD that is topically indistinguishable. XfDs need to be interpreted and closed with past and concurrent XfDs (and other, broader consensuses) also taken into account.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close which accurately reflected the comments in the discussion. Besides, why do we need multiple crappy redundant redirects for the same target? Let it go, or write it on a bathroom wall.- Mr X 🖋 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  RfD isn't based on whether a redirect is "needed", but whether a particular redirect causes some kind of problem (is confusing, is an attack, is nonsensical gibberish and so wastes space and maint. time without ever being used, etc.). I don't actually prefer RfD going in that direction, but it is very strongly the direction that RfD has travelled, so it should be applied evenly, not differentially on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus I don't see how there was a consensus to delete, especially in light of the more recent AfD. And redirects aren't articles - WP:ITSUSEFUL is a valid argument to keep. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus, and kudos to closer Amorymeltzer for self-awareness about their error. — JFG ^talk 17:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete the redirect, and arguably a slight consensus to keep it (I see both keep and no consensus as being within admin discretion, based on the arguments presented). Thryduulf ( talk) 21:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. Thanks for the ping Amory. I wish it had gone for delete but I can't say I thought that was the sum of the discussion. Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus - without even taking into account the new discussion, I do not think the result of old discussion can reasonably, objectively be interpreted as anything besides no consensus. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 22:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus- though I disagree in principle with the notion that the views of XfD participants should be thrown out just because there might be related discussion happening elsewhere, I don't see any consensus to delete at this discussion. If anything, it was probably leaning keep. Reyk _YO! 07:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. My original vote was keep based on levity & not being offensive. I see no reason to change my vote. However, if the shortcut goes then this should go too. I don't see the difference between Wikipedia:Other crap exists and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Either way I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist. Thanks for the ping Amory. 8==8 Boneso ( talk) 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - Despite my objection to this redirect, I say that more discussion is needed. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to non-consensus. That was the only resultthat reflected thediscussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Decision within admin discretion (noting a binary decision, no content or history at stake), however, the closer must ensure that someone pipes all eighteen incoming links to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

@ RoySmith: I believe SmokeyJoe meant that it would be necessary to pipe the links if the closure stood (and implied it should have been done at the time of the closure that was being debated here). As this has been overturned, it is not necessary to fix incoming links. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 02:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Colors (Hindi TV channel) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am a new user to wikipedia. When I know that there is no page for colors tv, I wanted to create a page for it. But unfortunately it was deleted quickly. I don't know the reason. All references for that article are from reliable sources. Anyone please tell me how to create an article for colors tv because all articles created for it had either deleted or redirected to viacom 18. Thank you. Christina74124 ( talk) 08:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• In WP:Articles for deletion/Colors Kannada, it was decided that both Colors Kannada and Colors (TV channel) were not notable apart from their parent company, ETV Network and were redirected there. Colors (Hindi TV channel) appears to be just another name for the same thing, so it's not needed. That being said, the AfD was almost three years ago, so maybe things have changed. Can you provide three sources which demonstrate that the channel is notable? If so, it might be worth reconsidering, but lacking that, I'll have to endorse the deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation in draft form for the WP:AFC process as it is a major broadcaster,thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  That sounds reasonable, and if any of the original content at either article was worth using as a basis to work from, WP:REFUND could be used to recover a copy of it to the draft namespace or to userspace.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  • @ Atlantic306 and SMcCandlish: in case you weren't aware, a draft already exists at Draft:Colors TV. For background on the editor(s) involved, please also see the linked SPI. Thanks, TMG ^talk 18:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Ah. That draft has just been deleted, and the "new" account above indeffed. TMG ^talk 18:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

      Derp. Well, if anyone else cares to work on it, they know how to do so.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply