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 Catamorphism#Terminology and history. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ⦇ → Z notation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ⦈ → Z notation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; Catamorphism could be a potential alternative seeing Bananas (catamorphism) or wikt:banana bracket. In the previous discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#⦈, where no consensus was achieved, I had also proposed Bracket#Encoding as an option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Catamorphism#Terminology and history, essentially per nom (with this section being the one that discusses the actual symbols). Duckmather (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tunbridge railway station → Tonbridge railway station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Potentially confusing redirect because it could refer to Tunbridge Wells railway station for short and also, as a misspelling of Tonbridge railway station. I would not be opposed to turning this into a disambiguation page but I would rather bring it here first. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep exactly as it is - it is not a misspelling, but a historic spelling. Tonbridge was spelled "Tunbridge" until 1870. The railway station opened in 1842, so for the first 28 years it was "Tunbridge railway station". Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarification. I will withdraw this one, I didn't realise that. I was just confused whether it meant that station or a shortcut to Tunbridge Wells. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 11:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoxton tube station → Hoxton railway station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hoxton railway station opened in 2010 as a London Overground station. When the East London Line was originally London Underground, Hoxton was not a station. Therefore, it makes no sense to have a redirect called "Hoxton tube station" when there was no such thing in the first place. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that whilst London Underground came up with the original idea of Hoxton station, there is no evidence to say that it was ever originally proposed to be opened as a London Underground station. The station came about in 2010 after the East London Line stopped running as a London Underground line. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Borderline delete (imo) per nom Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Restore without prejudice to AfD. Jay 💬 15:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tylers Corner, California → El Dorado County, California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target article does not refer to Tylers Corner at all. Since this was just a rural intersection it is an exceedingly unlikely search term, and a general page on El Dorado County would not be helpful. Redirect should just be deleted. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and send to WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore without prejudice to AfD. The article claimed, with 2 sources, that the subject is a community and no source was provided for the claim that it is just a "named corner". Even though one of those sources is deprecated as a basis for demonstrating notability, the other (afaict from a quick look) is not, but even if GNIS were the only source cited it is unreliable not reliably false, so claims based on it need to be evaluated at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Process (information system development) → Process (computing)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect could be considered misleading since the name of the disambiguator, Information system development, has no existing redirect and/or article to define it, though Information systems development did exist at one point, but was deleted in 2005. Also, this redirect is a ((R with history)) as a article created in 2006 and was subject to a WP:BLAR in 2007.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Don’t delete, as an ((R with history)) and as a redirect that’s existed since 2006 - per WP:R#K1 and K4. No opinion yet on the best target, but wanted to get this down first. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: The lone comment in this discussion does not seem to address the usefulness of the redirect as a functional redirect, but rather as a history holder. Maybe "restore and send to WP:AFD" is the option at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete. There's nothing of value hidden in the page history, only a poorly sourced and written stub that would surely end up deleted at AfD anyway. This isn't even a ((R with old history)) which only refers to redirects created pre-2004, so there's absolutely nothing worth preserving. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cyclone. Inwind didn't find anything worth merging to Process (systems engineering) while creating that article as the redirect target. Jay 💬 12:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Fox Corporation#Assets. (non-admin closure) 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Blockchain Creative Labs → Tubi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This topic is not mentioned at the target; neither is "blockchain", "creative", or "BCL", for that matter. Does not appear to be directly affiliated with Tubi based on my outside searching, although there's nothing to indicate that it is from article contents, as there are none. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Fox Corporation#Assets, adding [1] as a source. Tubi Media Group should probably be retargeted there as well. And the infobox at Fox Entertainment should be updated to note that Tubi and BCL are no longer its subsidiaries. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on adding a mention at Fox Corporation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @TechnoSquirrel69: There is already a mention there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 08:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My bad, I think I misread your message. Any comments on adding a source? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added it. Jay 💬 08:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 08:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Annual Gift Man → Santa Claus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mentioned neither at current target nor at previous target Homer's Phobia. Christmas gift-bringer is a halfway viable target, but deletion makes much more sense. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or redirect somewhere to Homer's Phobia, if meaningful content added, see [2]. - Altenmann >talk 00:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete trivial mention in one episode of a TV series. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Homer's Phobia. It's been around for 13 years, and I think that counts as "Links that have existed for a significant length of time" per WP:R#KEEP #4. Even if it's not mentioned in the article, I think that when the reader gets to the paragraph about Santa's Village, they'll glork the meaning from context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly though - If there is no mention of this phrase in any RS, why would anyone think to search it? I can only imagine someone watching the episode and wondering if the claim is true. We are not answering it by pointing to an article on the episode they just watched. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a realistic search term. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).