The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Talk:Michael Jackson and Bubbles/Archive 1 → Talk:Bubbles (chimpanzee)/Archive 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Talk:Michael Jackson and Bubbles and Talk:Bubbles (chimpanzee) are independent of each other. Sawol (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's an R from move, albeit a unilateral one that was reverted after a year, and as an archive page the benefit of retaining the redirect doesn't outweigh the risk for confusion. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• User:Maile66 and User:Fastily accepted WP:G8 requests like this. But User:JBW declined. Sawol (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I declined "WP:G8 requests like this". What I declined was an unblock request the rationale for which was "because Michael Jackson and Bubbles and Bubbles (chimpanzee), independently of each other", whatever that is supposed to mean, and which didn't even mention G8. JBW (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. For the record I would also have declined a speedy deletion here, as it doesn't clearly fit into any of the enumerated WP:G6 criteria. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted by JBW (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Lanzhou City Square → List of tallest buildings in China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Lanzhou is likely a better target in this case, not that it's mentioned there either. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 13:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89 - '90 → Mötley Crüe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89 – '90 → Mötley Crüe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The original page (Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89–'90) was deleted as it failed both WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR. This redirect, along with Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89 – '90, was then re-targeted to Mötley Crüe. As the original page and its history isn't available anymore (unless restored), I think these two redirects should be deleted. 8086-PC (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete in the spirit of G8. Mistargeted redirect resulting from outdated bot action. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep Mentioned at target though not under this exact phrasing. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - These should have been deleted along with the original parent article, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89–'90. I don't think the bare mention at Mötley Crüe#Tours is enough to justify keeping as there is nothing about the tour apart from the years which is in the name anyway (unless there's a sentence or two about the tour somewhere else I missed?). A7V2 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn for uncontroversial retargeting to Samroeng Chaiyong. (non-admin closure) Paul_012 (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Samruay Chaiyonk → Snong Chiayong  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Different person, misleading redirect, a whole mess of confusion that lasted for several years here and on Wikidata. Snong is a younger brother of Samruay Chaiyong, who should probably have an article, which should be the target of this redirect, but until that article is created, this redirect needs to remain in red. Paul_012 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Note that the redirect has a miss-spelling ("Chaiyonk" instead of "Chaiyong"), and it currently targets a mis-spelling, so if kept the double redirect should be fixed (it should be Snong Chaiyong, not Snong Chiayong). A7V2 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Update: Never mind, I just went ahead and created the Samroeng Chaiyong article (it's Samruay's more recent name). This should now be an uncontroversial case of retargeting there. A7V2, if you don't mind, this can probably be speedily closed as withdrawn. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Paul 012: Yes feel free to withdraw and target Samroeng Chaiyong. I don't have a strong opinion about the likeliness of the miss-spelling. A7V2 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted by JBW (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Songdo I-Core City → List of tallest buildings in Incheon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• I-Core City → List of tallest buildings in Incheon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Unclear how this title relates to the target article. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Appears to be a proposed/under construction building/facility. See List of tallest buildings in South Korea#Approved or proposed, and to be located Incheon but not mentioned in List of tallest buildings in Incheon#Tallest buildings under construction (or elsewhere in that article). I-Core City originally targeted List of tallest buildings in South Korea, and there are also I-Core City Landmark I and I-Core City Landmark II which target List of tallest buildings in South Korea. I'm thinking either weak retarget to List of tallest buildings in South Korea#Approved or proposed or failing that delete since there is no reference given and very little information anyway. Adding mention to the current target could be an option too, especially as it seems this building would be substantially the tallest in the city so presumably something could be included even this far from the scheduled completion. A7V2 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted by JBW (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dynamix-Balwas Tower (DB Tower) → List of tallest buildings in Mumbai  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target / unnecessary disambiguation in redirect title (not normal to include short form in brackets). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted by JBW (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Imperial 3 → List of tallest buildings in Mumbai  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Cancelled project according to [1]. If there was to be a mention anywhere I would imagine The Imperial (Mumbai) being a suitable place, but unless/until that is added and justified then this should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted by JBW (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sikka Dream Height → List of tallest buildings in Delhi NCR  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak delete per nom. Alternatively weak retarget to List of tallest buildings in India#Proposed or approved where there is a limited entry for this building. A7V2 (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Mass-deleted by User:JBW as part of a sweep of unhelpful redirects created by Jaiquiero. Discussion was also heading towards delete, so there is prejudice against recreation unless at least mention is added to the target article. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• AID Sea Colony Tower 101 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Majestower Beomil Tower 104 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Sharp Centum Park 101 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Sharp Centum Park 103 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Sharp Centum Park 105 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Sharp Centum Park 109 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Sharp Centum Park 111 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Sharp Centum Park 201 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Sharp Centum Park 203 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Sharp Centum Park 205 → List of tallest buildings in Busan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per nom. I'm really starting to wonder though if even if they were mentioned, these would make good redirects. These "tallest building" articles are full of misleading bluelinks which link back to the same list. A7V2 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @A7V2: It appears they've created somewhere around ~1,100 redirects in the past few days to lists of tallest buildings. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: No reason to have circular backlinks that redirect back the article. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: What happens when an admin is so egotistical to deal with multiple articles on a similar subject? They loop it back to the main article. I rest my case. Jaiquiero (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete circular Meters (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Or we could leave the redirects and remove the circular links in the target article. Meters (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Contesting deletion. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 00:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia:CONTEST → Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:Contest → Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:CONTESTED → Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Contesting a deletion is not limited to WP:PROD only. Speedy and AfD deletions are also contested or appealed, and WP:DRV is the forum for that. But in terms of information available, I think WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review is one central point where the section and sub-section discuss contesting all kinds of deletions, including PROD, and suggest appropriate forums. I suggest retargeting to WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review.

I realize that non-deletion actions / closure outcomes can be also contested, but we already have WP:Appeal, WP:CHALLENGE and WP:CHALLENGECLOSE pointing to the non-deletion pages. Jay 💬 15:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I saw a notice about this RFD nomination on the PROD talk page and thought, "What does a contest have to do with Proposed deletion?" I didn't think of the word as a verb. Assuming I'm an ordinary person, there might be some confusion should folks drop this abbreviation into policy debates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  We do have WP:Contests for your fun kind of usage! Jay 💬 04:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Possibly disambiguate otherwise keep as a longstanding redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note that CONTESTED is from 2009. The other two are from the 2022 RfD mentioned. Jay 💬 06:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ReTarget all to Wikipedia:Contests, except the -ed version. For that one, I was looking around the various XfD policies and such, but nothing really matches it. So I think creating Wikipedia:Contesting deletion as a dab page, and list all the ways one can "contest" a deletion, including various options for xfd, csd, prod, drv, etc. - jc37 02:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thinking more about it, that dab page might be more work than a closer might like : )

  So for now, I suppose just Keep Wikipedia:CONTESTED pointed to Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting. - jc37 11:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think what jc37 has suggested makes the most sense. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Based on Jc37's proposal, I made a quick list at Draft:Contesting deletion; I think it could work as a disambiguation page if there is consensus on this. Any editor can feel free to add possible missing entries or revise the phrasing to be more appropriate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You may want to add WP:CFD/S to that list as well. - jc37 15:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The entries at the draft are good, but it is not a valid dab draft. It is titled "Contesting deletion" but the lower part is about other kinds of contesting. I now feel the section WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review (my proposed target) should be renamed to "Contesting deletion" and the upper part of the draft contents incorporated there in verbose form. Why should Wikipedia:Contesting deletion be a dab? It can be a redirect to the section if need be. However, I support the idea of redirecting or disambiguating CONTESTED. Jay 💬 06:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jay: Fair point on the title of the page. I'd be fine with moving it to Wikipedia:Contested (without "deletion") if there's consensus to disambiguate. As for rewriting your proposed section to "Contesting deletion", that would probably be redundant as prior sections have already covered other deletion processes. A disambiguation page would provide essentially the same information as WP:DP, but in a way that is more concise and focused specifically on contesting processes. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking consensus on possible disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I haven't been following this discussion, but the draft Draft:Contesting deletion that jc37, TechnoSquirel, et al have suggested does look good to me. Disambiguate per the above, perhaps with Wikipedia:Contests as a see also. Duckmather (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support redirecting to Wikipedia:Contesting deletion (Draft:Contesting deletion). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Mainland Japan per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) J947 † ^edits 02:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Japanese mainland → Honshu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Japanese mainland not just referring to Honshu, but also the three remaining islands (Kyushu, Shikoku, and Hokkaido). 219.78.190.81 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Geography of Japan; the lead discusses the five main islands of Japan. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ahem. There's a Mainland Japan article, which I think would be the most obvious choice for retargeting. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind lol, I second this one. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Mainland Japan per Paul_012. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Mainland Japan per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Mainland Japan per Paul_012. A7V2 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).