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 Laut Island. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulau Laut → Natuna Regency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It should be deleted to make way for an article on that specific sub-district. I will most likely create that article soon but do not have time now. Also for a template I am making with the sub-districts of Indonesia. Also no pages link there PalauanReich (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target article has a few sentences about the island, which can reasonably be seen as its subtopic. So the redirect is perfectly OK so far: if you'd like to write an article, then just do that over the redirect: that's how things are normally done. However, the real complication here is the existence of another island wit the same name in a different part of the country: Laut Island. Judging by the information in that article, it may well be the primary topic for the term. – Uanfala (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The Laut Island off the coast of South Kalimantan is the primary topic as it is more notable with bigger population and more significance historically and economically, connected to Kotabaru Regency. Using search in Indonesian language about Pulau Laut also revals that it is mostly used to refer to the one in Kotabaru Regency.

Nyanardsan (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not necessary to delete the redirect in order to turn it into an article. Furius (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and pinging Nyanardsan to ask them to clarify their position: their !vote is phrased as "keep" but the actual argument seems to suggest retargeting to Laut Island. Other editors are also welcome to continue discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Laut Island as primary topic per Uanfala and Nyanardsan, who may have said "keep" to mean "don't delete". Jay 💬 08:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Break down of demonic structures → Classification of demons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure how helpful such a redirect is. Veverve (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible typo. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If the typo is the issue, move without redirect to Breakdown of demonic structures. Jay 💬 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not useful. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus as Christ and Messiah → Jesus in Christianity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jesus as Christ → Jesus in Christianity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The idea that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah is also present in Islam and in Druze faith. Therefore, I propose to redirect all to Religious perspectives on Jesus. Veverve (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a difference between seeing Jesus as some sort of messianic figure and seeing Jesus as the Christ. "Christ" is a distinctly Christian term—it is not used to refer to Jesus by Muslims nor the Druze. And, in any case, the WP:PTOPIC for this phrase is going to have to be the Christian view of Jesus (i.e. Jesus as Christ) rather than the Muslim and Druze concepts. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refining both, per the below, would also make plenty of sense to me and would have my full support. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Christ" is a distinctly Christian term for purely linguistic reasons. Christ is from Greek χριστός, meaning "anointed"; it is an exact translation of Hebrew משיח (English: "messiah"). Muslims and Druze use Messiah instead of Christ because their adherents primarily speak Semitic languages and so use the Semitic word instead of the Indo-European one. Conceptually, there is no difference. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 05:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but I think that we should care about English-language connotation when doing this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine both to Jesus in Christianity#Christ, Logos and Son of God, which is specifically about Jesus as Christ. Duckmather (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really have an opinion here, but is the proposed subsection a better target than Christology or Christ (title)? I suppose it depends on what the reader is actually looking for, and as is the case with many of our articles on religion, there is a lot of overlap in topic coverage. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[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 disambiguate. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pendar → Zoroastrianism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at the target. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Veverve (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This existed as an article between 2006 and 2013. Its main content was: Pendar (Persian: پندار pendâr) is a Persian word meaning "thought" or "imagination". It is used by Zoroastrians: Pendar-e-Neek ("Good/Honorable Thoughts") is one of the three main pillars of Zoroastrianism, Iran's ancient religion. We have articles about the specific Zoroastrian concepts (like Vohu Manah for 'good though'), but I'm not sure the Farsi names are used for those, and pendar by itself seems like just a component of these terms, not a distinct encyclopedic concept of its own. So I think the redirect can be safely deleted, and this will have the benefit of revealing in the search results some unrelated minor topics with the name. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — The Anome (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• An article with this title was earlier moved to Kenneth Pendar, and later Pendar became a dab with the Kenneth article as an entry, which then became a See also entry, and then was removed by an IP with no explanation. Jay 💬 09:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate to Kenneth Pendar, Seyed Pendar Toufighi, and Mohsen Pezeshkpour, all as personal names or nicknames. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the middle name entry is a bit stretched, but if Pendar was the nickname of Mohsen Pezeshkpour, then it makes sense to have a DAB with two entries. Jay 💬 07:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I also support the DAByfication, but as a second choice after deletion. Veverve (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per LaundryPizza03 as a valid ATD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per LaundryPizza03. Makes more sense as a disambiguation. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft disambiguation page would help...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943:  Done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• F-zerogplegend.com → F-Zero: GP Legend  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - URL in the redirect is dead, so it's not a believable target for searches. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Still a valid search term. I don’t see why we should delete it, as some people may still search for the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuicoleJR (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, the URL is dead, so it is highly unlikely anyone would search for the term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as an implausible and outdated search term. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Expand the article – I disagree with the point in it not being a believable target: notability does not degrade over time. If the URL was alive at any point, it could be cited in sources from the time, and so it's possible for someone to find the URL in one of the sources and try to search for more information about the site.

However, the article does not provide any information about the site in its current state. If the site is covered by secondary sources, then the article can be expanded to talk about it. Otherwise, delete as unhelpful. I did not find any reliable coverage on the site from a quick search personally. Randi Moth (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the archived versions of the site require Flash Player since the site was only designed to use it, so there isn't value to mentioning it as in other cases and as far as I can tell, none of the Flash alternatives are able to work with the site. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Website names past or present are valid search terms. If this was their official website, keep, otherwise delete. Jay 💬 17:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the Internet Archive's first saved copy, though as noted it doesn't work right due to the lack of Flash. It does have links to the Nintendo website at the bottom, though if that is not enough proof then there is a problem as the Nintendo website archive for the time only properly works with Flash. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  True. Before I made the vote, I visited the web archive of ALL the years and months of the website to see if any one version is good to be added as an external link in the Infobox or External links. I do not know if this was their official website. A reader may search for a website to know about the subject the website represents. In case of a defunct website, he may or may not be interested to see how the site looked before it was pulled down. In this case, it only gives an idea of the background colour, and the footer. Jay 💬 06:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a bummer that Ruffle is currently unable to load the website as it would likely make this discussion easier. The Internet Archive did save more files that just the front page, but most of them don't really help: Sweepstakes, Wallpaper A, B, and C. That is pretty much everything that was saved at the time. If we could get to the GBA page on Nintendo.com, then we could easily confirm the connection, like with this link connecting Dr. Mario / Puzzle League to www.puzzleleague.com, but it likely is just a wild goose chase. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Official website per Skynxnex. Jay 💬 06:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Given the state of the internet in 2004, it seems more likely than not that the website in question was the official website of the video game. Maybe if someone has a copy of the game or even a Nintendo Power issue from then it could be verified? But anyways, I'm weak on this because even then I think it's pretty implausible someone would type in the URL of the website without already knowing the name of the video game today. Legoktm (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It was at least one of their official websites (see back of box at like https://www.gamingrelics.com/Game_Boy_Advance/GBA_FZero_GP_Legend), it's not harmful to keep that I can sell, and could be useful. Skynxnex (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 08:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocklauncher → Minecraft modding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Minecraft foobar. During the time between the previous RFD and this RFD, the mention of this term was removed from the target in this revision. As such, this term is no longer mentioned in the target nor in any other Wikipedia article. Nearly all of the sources that I have found on Google are unreliable. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[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 Speedy Deleted. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• “Toni Fowler” → Jon Gutierrez#Personal life and career  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term when the quotation marks are included. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It was actually a mistake on my part, I accidentally included the quotation marks when I created that redirect. I have since created another one without the marks. Vida0007 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added ((db-g7)) to the redirect; hopefully it'll be gone soon. Duckmather (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Creator seems to have no issue with the RfD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[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. Jay 💬 19:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:England Tours → Template:England national rugby union team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - This redirect is confusing, as it's not clear what sort of tours are being referred to. The template was originally created to refer to rugby union tours, but this title could easily refer to cricket. – PeeJay 14:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous. England rugby union and cricket teams (at least) currently tour and the rugby league team used to. And that's assuming that this refers to tours by an England sports team, not tours of/to England by other national sides, or non-sporting tours. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[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. Jay 💬 13:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Monph → Month  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Norph → North  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo given the location of the letters T and P on the keyboard. Created by a rather suspicious-looking account. An anonymous username, not my real name 13:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have bundled a very similar redirect by the same creator. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unused redirect with a pretty unlikely typo. TartarTorte 13:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlikely typo and no other apparent connection with the target or any other encyclopaedic topic that I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coming from the person who made it himself.

I was relatively inexperienced with editing on Wikipedia at the time and I thought misspelled redirects were any phrase that is pronounced similarly to the actual phrase. Now I understand. Bbaaeeee (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[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. Jay 💬 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Grilled beef → Carne asada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I find it strange that "Grilled beef" redirects to "Carne Asada". The only link to this redirect is from Korean Wave which certainly isn't referring to Carne Asada when it links to grilled beef. Wouldn't a redirect to Grilling be far more apt? :3 F4U (they/it) 11:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This should definitely not stay as is, but what to do with it is harder. We do have List of beef dishes, and several of the listings there (including Carne asada) do include "grilled" in the description, but it isn't sorted (or sortable) by preparation method so isn't ideal but I think slightly better than grilling. A specific set index article may be possible, but I wonder whether that would be seen is too narrow and/or too much of an overlap with the broader list of beef dishes? Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - basically WP:XY; this is just too vague to pick an appropriate target. Thryduulf already highlighted issues with List of beef dishes; List of steak dishes is a little more refined and steak is maybe more likely than other cuts of beef to be grilled, but there certainly are grilled beef dishes which are not steak, steak preparations other than grilling, and also non-steak beef dishes which are not grilled. Pageviews are not so high as to be doing readers a disservice by letting the search engine handle this. 01:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs)
• Delete (as nominator) Going with what @Ivanvector: said. Literally the sole article where it was used (Korean Wave), it certainly wasn't talking about steak, but rather bulgogi and LA galbi. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After thinking about this more, I agree with Ivanvector that this is just too ambiguous to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[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 speedy deleted per criterion WP:G10. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter James (Pseudohistorian) → Peter James (historian)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect appears to have been created by the reversion of a page move that had POV issues. The discussion about the move here mentioned the redirect should be deleted per WP:RFD#DELETE #3. The redirect is not currently used and does not serve a useful disambiguation purpose. GretLomborg (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. GretLomborg (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: potential BLP violation which does not serve a useful purpose. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Per WP:RNEUTRAL this would be fine if this description of him were common and/or included in the article with a reliable source, however neither appears to be true in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[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 without prejudice to recreation if a mention is added to the target article Salvio ^giuliano 07:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Una (prefix) → Unit prefix#Unofficial prefixes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is nothing about "una" in the article and this redirect is therefore confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the redirect was put in place in 2004-2005, the article did mention the (bogus) Una- prefix. See e.g. here. We should document it and add it to the article. At which point the redirect will become legitimate again. Urhixidur (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless added to the target with reliable sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added to the target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[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 keep. And hatnote to the list. Jay 💬 14:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Michigan Business School → Ross School of Business  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Michigan School of Business → Ross School of Business  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous search terms which could refer to any of the pages in Category:Business schools in Michigan or at the Michigan section of List of business schools in the United States. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm. Weak delete for Michigan Business School and weak keep for Michigan School of Business. Given that Ross is the only school in that category with "school" in its name and the latter is closer to its name than the former. Skynxnex (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on your comment I found Mike Ilitch School of Business at Wayne State University. I've now created a redirect and added it to that category. Additionally, I found List of business schools in the United States, which mentions Oakland University School of Business Administration. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting. I think I am still a weak keep for that but now much weaker. It still seems by far the most likely target for someone just typing that. Skynxnex (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Michigan School of Business as the school's former name was "University of Michigan School of Business Administration," which is reasonably similar. Weak delete Michigan Business School as ambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the category now has school entries other than Ross.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of business schools in the United States#Michigan (I've just added anchors to that table), where all the possible targets should be listed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Michigan is short form for the University of Michigan, and the target is its business school. While it has been renamed for about 20 years, the first 80-years were under the more generic name. A hatnote would suffice to one of the proposed targets would suffice. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and hatnote per Patar knight. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[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).