Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2026.

Sight on Sound

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 1#Sight on Sound

Kel Gleason

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to list this redirect as part of the multi-nom section about contestants appearing in only Survivor: The Australian Outback. Nonetheless, how he was eliminated from the season was... well... Actually, I was hoping some buzz about that. Alternatively, the "Jerri Manthey" article mentions her interactions with him and his elimination. Preferably, the page should be redirected to The Australian Outback article as, like other contestants, he hasn't appeared in later Survivor seasons as of now. George Ho (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Described at the current target and the proposed target with slightly different information, alongside passing mentions at Jerri Manthey and Miss Universe 2001. Delete the first two redirects since search results ably disambiguate between those mentions, but retarget "Kelly Gleason" to Survivor:_The_Australian_Outback#Contestants with the anchor (or keep) since search results are less helpful. J947 ‡ edits 06:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    Did you mean Google results? (Google ≠ Wikipedia) When I used the exact term " 'kel gleason' " on Wikipedia, the results came with just this Survivor contestant. Is there another Kel Gleason I'm unaware of? George Ho (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    No to both questions. Since "Kelly" is used in many more articles than "Kel", Special:Search/Kel Gleason is much more useful than Special:Search/Kelly Gleason. The majority of readers do not know to search with quote marks. J947 ‡ edits 09:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    Found out just now there's the other "Kelly Gleason", who won an Emmy for non-prosthetic makeup in Angels in America (miniseries). Perhaps disambiguate "Kelly" instead. Is there a way for me to make you reconsider deleting the "Kel" pages? George Ho (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC); clarified, 19:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    I think deleting the "Kel" pages would be unjust. He was often called "Kel", especially in the series and secondary sources, like this one. George Ho (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm fine with deleting the third one as well. J947 ‡ edits 02:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first two to Survivor: Australia. Delete Kelly Gleason. His name is listed as "Kel", not "Kelly", in all four articles that have been suggested as targets. He only appeared on one season and the Australia article contains the most information about his gameplay. All the other articles that mention him describe him as a Survivor: Australia contestant and this is consistent with external sources. He's most known for appearing on this season of the show. Google and Google News searches for Kel Gleason exclusively return references to this contestant on the first couple of pages. Some sources do include his long name "Kelly" but this is not the norm. A search for Kelly Gleason is more mixed and includes non-notable people not covered on Wikipedia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Fanter

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 26#Fanter

Parks and recreation

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. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 04:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

This does not look like the right target, judging by what links to it. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I checked; all the links in project space are related to the RfD. I2Overcome talk 18:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Per I2Ovecome, whose analysis I find convincing. My initial hesitation was that *maybe* readers use parks and recreation generically to refer to parks departments even while individual departments are capitalized as proper names. However, WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't usually apply when people omit capitals in multiword titles, since most search engines are case insensitive and it is common practice to 'lazily' type in all-lowercase online. It is highly implausible that lowercase parks and recreation most often represents a deliberate choice by readers to search for a list of named parks departments/boards/etc. The hatnote will help those readers who do land on the wrong article. Wikinav shows that Department of Parks and Recreation is not among the top 20 pages readers navigate to, from Parks and Recreation. There's no indication that large numbers of readers are landing on the wrong page and the cleaning up of links from articles should reduce that even more. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget. The generic term "parks and recreation" is what inspired the show, and is very much used to describe organizations and departments tasked with maintaining parks and organizing recreation activities in a local area. I don't think we should be immediately pointing readers towards a niche use like the TV show without at least having an article on the general term. SounderBruce 22:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Bruce to Department of Parks and Recreation, though I'm not sure I'd call that particular TV series niche. At best, it's also a misspelling of the TV series' title given the lower-case r and should never be linked to onwiki with the intent of targeting that title. (I am also a bit skeptical of that article's capitalization, but since it's presently a DAB for actual departments, I'll leave it alone.) Izno (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    It should never be used for linking in articles but is useful for searching, which is a major function of redirects and one of the reasons we create and maintain {{R from miscapitalization}}, {{R from misspelling}}, and redirects with similar tags. Brintey spearsBrintey spears gets thousands of hits per month. DAB links also should not be used in articles, with some exceptions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    Britney spears has the luxury of being a bit more unique than a name like "parks and rec". IznoPublic (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    True, true. I used an intentionally extreme example to illustrate the point but in doing so you've helped me see the error of my ways. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Department of Parks and Recreation and consider restoring links from articles that were removed. Parks and recreation is a widely used generic term, especially in the United States, and the type of administrative body the TV show is named after is the primary topic for the generic term. It is definitely primary topic by long-term significance WP:PT2 and almost certainly by usage WP:PT1, despite the show's popularity. Upon looking at this more closely—including a series of Ngrams—I'm actually not convinced that the TV show is even the primary topic for the capitalized form, but that is quite off-topic for this discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Parks and Recreation is a substantially more viewed article (over 70,000 page views in the last month compared with under 200 for Department of Parks and Recreation), despite an existing hatnote to Department of Parks and Recreation—this suggests that very few users are using the hatnote because they are ending up where they intended. Additionally, the article Department of Parks and Recreation, I would argue, is pretty WP:SURPRISE-ing, as it is a list article of parks and recreation departments and if you've not searched for a list I wouldn't expect to get one. If it were an article about what parks and recreation as a topic is broadly, I could see the argument for it, but as is, I think there's two strong arguments against it as the redirect location. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
    Comment: I previously thought the Department of Parks and Recreation article was either a standard list article or a set index article—I actually find it very odd that it is set up as a disambiguation page, but that is another matter. I still think keeping this redirect as is makes the most sense, and potentially creating the redirect Parks and recreation department to Department of Parks and Recreation, which would be a more likely search term for the items on that article. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah, it does seem like this should be a regular standalone list or SIA and that it could include at least a brief introductory lead section describing parks and recreation departments in general. I don't feel strongly enough to change it (at the moment…) but I agree the current set up is odd. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep the DAB doesn't appear to have generic uses so I don't think WP:DIFFCAPS applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 23:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Râtul River

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence that there is such a river anywhere in Romania. The google search results aren't giving any such evidence; the Southern Min article zh-min-nan:Râtul Khe is completely unsourced; and the wikidata item wikidata:Q7385893 does not cite any sources other than enwiki or itself. I suggest deletion unless someone has an explanation. Duckmather (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've found exactly one source for a river by this name however that is "Ratul" (with no diacritic) and is located in Nepal not Romania (I'm not certain what river it is actually referring to, possibly "Ratu" but we don't have an article on a Nepalese river by that name which is odd as one source describes it as a significant tributary of the Ganges, so I'm guessing there is maybe an alternative transliteration?). Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Could the creator have got confused with Rât (Mureș) which has one of the sources saying "Ratul" (webpage not found though)? I have also bundled the non-diacritic version here, since Thryduulf said it may refer to the river from Nepal. Jay 💬 07:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    In terms of the Nepalese River, I found exactly one source (total, not just reliable sources) that used this name, so I would not like to say whether this was an error, an alternative name, an alternative transliteration or something else - especially as I wasn't able to determine what river it was referring to - "Ratu" is just my best guess. Even if we had an article about that river it wouldn't merit a redirect or dab entry based on the information we are able to find. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Markussep: Why would you redirect a river that you think may not exist to another river that doesn't mention this river? If you did the required research to make that determination, the solution is therefore to seek deletion of the page, no? To me, your action seems to have created additional unnecessary confusion without actually resolving the issue. -- Tavix (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    In hindsight, I should have proposed deletion. I did find a map just now that shows a small stream Râtul Morii, that flows into the small river Câtina (no article), a tributary of the Fizeș. So it seems to exist, but it’s not very notable. I’ve seen some references to an archaeological site named Râtul Morii, could be related. Markussep Talk 20:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 23:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per my above comment. This isn't the first time Romanian rivers has come up at RfD and I don't think it'll be the last due to the way Markussep 'cleaned up' this topic. -- Tavix (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

TimTims2022-created redirects (Part 2)

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 trainwreck. No change, but no prejudice against any unilateral retargets or disambiguations. This is the sort of discussion that spirals. I'm going to get in ahead of that because it's improbable that this discussion will have a considered conclusion. Nominate these individually if desired. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 04:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This is part 2 of titles created by TimTims2022 for convenience in my opinion, whether or not such a division, television asset or company ever existed for these titles, so listing them here for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  • What a trainwreck. Intrisit, next time consider separate nominations.
    • Retarget Fox Local to Fox Television Stations. This is the name used by the connected TV app and in some ways now the on-air product of the Fox owned-and-operated stations. This redirect will be more closely related to the topic. There are actually already, all within 12 months, a dozen references that cite "Fox Local" as the source (and a couple more using "Fox Local" or "Fox local" in references to specific affiliates).
    • Retarget VOXup to RTL Deutschland. The article in dewiki (de:VOXup) is flimsy, which tells me it may not have standalone notability. It's best to redirect to the ownership group.
    • Retarget FX Movies to FX Movie Channel, a reasonable if rare name.
    • Keep Fox (Australian TV channel), HBO3, Okoo, Sky Serie. They are mentioned in the articles and reasonable redirect.
    • Delete the remainder.
Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
True and sure they may have benefits, but I'm nominating them here en masse because of what I'm seeing in the contributions page of that editor. Also, sure redirects are cheap, but compared to my first-part nomination, what I'm seeing here is some sort of unneeded, unwarranted and unnecessary creation of redirects just so that you and/or the other perennial RfD participants; Mathguy2718, Thryduulf, Tavix, Jay and Myceteae could land a support or opposition to. RETURNTORED exists for this reason, otherwise these titles will not be here to begin with. Articles aren't going to be created for them, hence their nominations, else they would have been created long before now! Intrisit (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Qubeck

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 26#Qubeck

Watertown Center, New York

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 moot. Redirect was already retargeted by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

There is already an article named Watertown Center (town), New York. Please merge these articles if approved. Bryce M (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Stormsnsnow it's not clear (at least to me) what you are asking here. Are you saying that Watertown, New York and Watertown Center (town), New York should be merged, that Watertown Center (town), New York should be moved to Watertown Center, New York over the redirect, or something else? Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Watertown Center, New York already has a link of Watertown Center (town), New York. Should this redirect target be changed to reflect this? If so, then the RFD can be closed?
Thanks Bryce M (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
@Thryduulf changed redirect to reflect this. If this is fine, you can safely close this.
Thanks Bryce M (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

IPhone GS

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) CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 17:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is essentially impossible for a redirect created 8 years ago to a product released 16 years ago to be a crystal ball violation. Very nearly every relevant google hit is people omitting the "3" from the "3GS" in the product name - a far from implausible mistake, so if this redirect is to exist it is pointing at the correct target. In the absence of a coherent reason to delete I see no reason to do anything other than keep the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

IPad with retina display

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) CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

No longer necessary, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Plus it has 0 pageviews ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 16:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

And also:
IPad 4G → IPad (4th generation)
Ipad fourth generation → IPad (4th generation)
IPad with Retina Display → IPad (4th generation)
~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 19:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  • "Not necessary" is never a reason on it's own to delete a redirect, and I don't know what you mean by Crystal ball in this context - the iPad fourth generation was released 14 years ago? Regardless of anything else, ipad fourth generation is an extremely plausible search term and will not be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep all (in case the others get bundled). I, too, am confused by the invocation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Regardless, iPad with Retina display appears to refer specifically to this version. The moniker is bolded in the lead and there is a hatnote to iPad (3rd generation), which apparently also used a Retina display but was not marketed this way. The other redirects mentioned are just various ways to express '4th generation'. These are plausible search terms and are unambiguous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Memory loss

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 29#Memory loss

Lost some of his memory

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete inappropriate single-use redirect. This was converted from a piped link [[Amnesia|lost some of his memory]] by the redirect creator for use in the The Emperor's New Groove ( Special:Diff/1327295240). The piped link has been restored, appropriately. This is an implausible search term and whether or not Amnesia is the best target depends entirely on who "he" is. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Not an appropriate use of redirects. This is an unfinished sentence fragment, not the title of a topic or related term which someone would use to search for a topic. – Scyrme (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment, it no longer is a single-use redirect. I created it because I thought it was a phrasing that could appear in the plot of some TV series and whatnot, and there are a few of them and maybe some more. I thought of it more as an alternative title that could be useful for some plot phrasing. There may still be issues, but the single-use is not one of them. I think it is interesting the discussion about other redirects, I simply thought it was an obvious target, but you always learn something a day. A dedicated article (described above) could be interesting. Davide King (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Neurological deterioration

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. "Neurological deterioration" is a generic phrase meaning decline, worsening, or impairment of nervous system function. Cognitive impairment can be an example or consequence of neurological deterioration but the terms are not synonymous and Cognitive impairment is not the primary topic. "Neurological deterioration" and "early neurological deterioration" (END) is commonly discussed in the context of ischemic stroke, with one recent paper noting there is still a lack of standard and well-recognized definitions of neurological deterioration. Usage is by no means exclusive to stroke, either. The meaning is highly context dependent and can be imprecise. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

More information Source analysis ...
Close

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

(Note: Something about this section has broken the [reply] tool, so clicking "reply" next to Myceteae's posts above doesn't work here. It does work in response to this note.) – Scyrme (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Would Neurodegenerative disease work as a target? "Deterioration" and "degeneration" seem synonymous, both being a "progressive loss [of neurons]", – Scyrme (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
No, neurodegenerative disease has a far more specific and restricted meaning, which you (partially) quoted above. These are chronic, progressive, incurable diseases whose underlying mechanism is neurodegeneration. I'm not sure itneurological deterioration always involves loss of neurons. The underlying pathology may be acute, transient, or reversible effects such as stroke, infection, toxicity, injury, etc., not just chronic progressive diseases. Neurological deterioration is a clinical description of worsening status or function. Following acute stroke, a common definition neurological deterioration is an increasea change in points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale or Glascow Coma Scale. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Fair. Seems like this is a case of delete as WP:RETURNTORED then. It's not mentioned at the current target and I wasn't able to find substantial content in any other article. If it's not deleted, the best target may be Neurological disorder as {{r from subtopic}}, though that article only has 1 mention. It seems Wikipedia doesn't yet cover this topic, though it probably should as the stats for this redirect show it's well used. – Scyrme (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Neurological disorder seems pretty unhelpful. Readers will have to hunt for the term and might be misled to thinking it is specific to lysosomal storage diseases. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Which part? How does this address any of the points raised by the nominator? Or even just the fact the current target doesn't actually discuss the topic? – Scyrme (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Draft:Avengers (film series)

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. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 04:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft-space redirect to a section; nominating to ask whether this title has enough independent navigational value to retain as a redirect rather than simply leaving the topic covered at the target section. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:RDRAFT. This could potentially become a useful draft should the target article require splitting in the future. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 00:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:RDRAFT applies to Draft namespace redirects created as a result of page moves. That is not what happened here. Draft:Avengers (film series) was created as a draft on November 17, 2025. Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) had existed in some form as a well developed article since 2020. Avengers (film series)Avengers (film series) was created first as a redirect in 2008. It has gone back and forth between being a redirect and a standalone article and has remained a redirect 2019 (and we recently discussed it here). This draft duplicated existing content and was appropriately identified as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK the day it was created. The content in the history is sparse and I don't see that it contains anything not already covered in substantially more detail at the target. It is also poorly sourced, with the majority of references being WP:IMDB and WP:BOXOFFICEMOJO. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Myceteae. Jay 💬 12:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep it is a direct match of a mainspace redirect, and navigational value in drftspace, such as it is, is directing would be drafters to where they should be contributing anyway because readers do not search draftspace. The redirect does discourage draft creation by inexperienced drafters, but in this case that is a feature not a bug, because a split is obviously controversial and is going to need a PROSPLIT discussion of some kind. In sum if someone does not know how to override a redirect they are almost certainly not going to know how to navigate the split process. No downside to this existing and some benefit, so let it be. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per above and WP:SRE. Redirecting to a section of a well-developed article is a valid alternative to deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Draft:Untitled Grand Theft Auto game

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 25#Draft:Untitled Grand Theft Auto game

Untitled Grand Theft Auto game

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 1#Untitled Grand Theft Auto game

Draft:Harry Potter (tv series)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 28#Draft:Harry Potter (tv series)

Draft:Harry Potter (TV series)

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) CycloneYoris talk! 12:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Obsolete draft-space redirect. Created during earlier title/move handling, but now seems to add little or no independent navigational value given the established article title in mainspace. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

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).

Draft:Untitled Harry Potter television series

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) 14:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Obsolete draft redirect with no navigational value; "Untitled …" is no longer a plausible search term now that the topic has an established title. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete: as per nom. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ →𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎← 08:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    No move history to mainspace so WP:RDRAFT doesn't apply. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed. Delete. Jay 💬 11:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I think the best way to view this is as an extension of WP:UFILM. It is quite likely there will be further iterations of Harry Potter on television where the titles are unknown, and this title could make creations of drafts on those a tiny bit more difficult. Minimal page views, insubstantial history which could in any case be salvaged by moving without redirect even if it were not. Slight potential downside to retaining, so weak delete here. Though noting that draft space navigation serves readers differently than mainspace navigation so it isn't a search issue per se. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Draft:Harry Potter (television series)

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. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 04:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

This was a redirect to another draft which is now in mainspace. This one doesn't have any substantive edit history. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

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).

Draft:God of War (upcoming TV series)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 25#Draft:God of War (upcoming TV series)

Vereinigtes Königreich

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 25#Vereinigtes Königreich

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI