Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15

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. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankenstein (UK TV miniseries) → Frankenstein (2007 film) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

It seems that the target was never was or planned to be a miniseries. Also, there seems to be no retargeting options for this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. The proposed articles do need to be created to prevent confusion. -- Beland (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• North American Football League → North American Soccer Football League (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Confusing since the "North American Football League" is a former American Football league (see, e.g., Huntsville Rockets) and is the name of a future American Football league (see, naflenterprises.com). Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you are proposing? The NASFL of the 1940s was also known as the NAFL, hence the redirect. It's a plausible search term and valid redirect, so I don't think deletion is appropriate. The other two NAFLs you mention do not appear to have an article, so they can't be redirected to. Until there is something else to which this could be targeted, then I think the redirect should be kept. TDL (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but "soccer football" is redundant, since "soccer" is a contraction of "association football". I imagine that was known by the founders, though. I scream alone. Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The term is not discussed at article, but that can be added as per Frietjes' comments. The distinction between the NFL and the NAFL is important. Si Trew (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per TDL. If/when there are other targets then a hatnote can be provided at the target or the redirect converted to a disambiguation page, but the other article(s) need to be created before that can happen. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 all. -- Beland (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 디지털 포트리스 → Digital Fortress (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. This is not a Korean book. Gorobay (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are a large number of unnecessary alternative-language redirects to this one particular book, would you like to make this a multi-nomination?
  1. 數位密碼 (traditional Chinese)
  2. Het Juvenalis Dilemma (Dutch)
  3. Cyfrowa twierdza (Polish)
  4. Fortaleza Digital (Portuguese)
  5. Fortăreaţa digitală and Fortăreața digitală (Romanian, I suppose one is correct and the other wrong, or one uses a pre-composed Unicode character and the other uses combining marks?)
  6. Tsifrova krepost (latinised Russian?)
  7. Bod klamu (Slovak, and not even the right Dan Brown book!)
  8. Digitalna Trdnjava (Slovene)
  9. La fortaleza digital (Spanish)

In fact it seems that many Dan Brown novels have similar redirects; e.g. for Angels and Demons [1]. Regards, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all these translated titles. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Dan Brown writes for the English language marketplace. There's no affinity for any language other than English. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reason for deletion has been presented, and it would needlessly screw over the readership. WilyD 11:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep - harmless and not new. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC).
  
  • @Rich Farmbrough: do you mean "keep"? I just tell you what I see (keeep).--333-blue 13:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Per WP:FORRED, and in English Wikipedia usually not use other language except for... (see this)--333-blue 13:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note this title is in use http://dynamide.tistory.com/399, for example. Dan Brown does not "write for the English language marketplace", he writes for anyone that will buy his books. (Or he writes for the fun of it... who knows... but his publishers certainly target the Korean market, and any other market they can sell sufficient copies in.)

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. --BDD (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Vietnamese reunification → Reunification Day (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This should point to an article about the actual event, compare with German reunification, etc, I cant seem to find a good target. - TheChampionMan1234 10:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirect works as intended. Per WP:POFRED: "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." I've added a {{R to related topic}} to make that more obvious. There's no point redirecting to an article that doesn't exist. If you want to create an article specifically about on the historical event of 1976, great; or post a request for it at Wikipedia:Requested articles. (I would suggest not that "Vietnamese reunification" should redirect to that article, but rather that it should actually be the title of it.) But as long as there is no article, the title of the missing article should redirect to the closest approximation. The article Reunification Day has a synopsis of the historical event as well as details on the commemoration. jnestorius^(talk) 11:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled AC/DC album → AC/DC (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Implausible search term to a broken section header that will perpetually need to be revised as long as AC/DC release albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:HAMMER. We could retarget this to AC/DC discography#Albums but as none of the albums listed there are untitled, this doesn't help anyone. If they do release an untitled album then this would likely be covered at Untitled (AC/DC album), and this would make a good redirect to such an article, but as there is no such album this redirect should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Adamantine, Minas Gerais → Diamantina, Minas Gerais (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

An assertion has been made that the redirect is an alternate spelling/pronunciation of the name of the target municipality. I declined speedy deletion as inapplicable, but am taking to redirects for discussion if anybody wants to make a case for deletion. It is not implausible, so I would not have any problem with this redirect remaining. Safiel (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that Diamantina is known as Adamantine - I have never heard it called that and cannot find any reference (except mirrors of Wikipedia - only the english one) to it being so called. There is a municpality in São Paulo called "Adamantina" (with the more likely portuguese "a" termination) but not in MG. I suspect (it's just a guess) that this arose through a translation of some portuguese text on the town into english and the proper name got translated by mistake at the same time. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.