Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 8

January 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 8, 2012

Cymothoa elegans



 * 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 redirect is still useful. Ruslik_ Zero 12:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This redirect redirects from a former stub article concerning a species to the genus article which is not only completely unnecessary and unhelpful but, in combination with the bot-generated article nl:Cymothoa elegans results in a recurring messup of interwikis. Either the former stub should be re-established or the redirect should be deleted. -- Cymothoa exigua (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum: if there are problems with nl:Cymothoa elegans, they should be addressed in nl wikipedia. Here this redirects serves the classic purpose and is useful. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2012 (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.

Joseph P. Kennedy II (politician)



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 12:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * → Joseph P. Kennedy II (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Another implausible term, not valid this time like the bad faith editor did the "pilot bomber" and the "politician". ApprenticeFan work 15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, the description is accurate; this is probably unnecessary but does no harm. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Unless something is harmful, we shouldn't delete it. Redirects are cheap only if not frequently deleted and restored. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid redirect.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep valid redirect, now tagged with R from unnecessary disambiguation. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination states a disagreement, not a violation of policy/guideline. I believe the redirect is accurate and helpful. patsw (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2012 (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.

Joseph P. Kennedy II (pilot bomber)



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 08:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * → Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Implausible redirect, not really valid. There was no "II/Second" on this name and it should be totally delete. ApprenticeFan work 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was apparently a good-faith but misguided attempt by an editor to "disambiguate" between Joe Kennedy Jr. and Joe Kennedy II when no disambiguation is needed, because in fact their names are distinguished by the different suffixes. Referring to "Jr." by "II" is incorrect and therefore this is an implausible search term. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete above.Trongphu (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete "pilot bomber" is really weird. Usually it's called "bomber pilot" 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as confusing redirect.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:58, 11 January 2012 (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.

Phu



 * 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 Phuan. Ruslik_ Zero 13:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * → Phu Phan Mountains (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I think we need to delete this. Phu is for the most part is a name in Vietnamese language. And yep it is also my name too. Anyone with a conscious can see Phu doesn't = Phu Phan Mountains at all. This redirect is really stupid. And i know Phu Phan Mountains is in Thailand so that means Phu could have a different meaning in Thailand language but Phu is obviously doesn't mean Phu Phan Mountains. People can add many other words after the word Phu to make it become a different word. This redirect is only true where in Thailand language Phu is a short way of writing Phu Phan or Phu Phan Mountains whih i don't think is the case. Trongphu (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate: create a DAB telling it's a Vietnamese first (or which?) name and link all known notable Phus. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Phu is a Vietnamese first name for the most part. Sometimes it is the middle name. It won't be clear enough if the word Phu stands alone. Phu is also a name for many villages, cities, landscapes in Vietnam when combine with other words. In Vietnamese language, when you combined 2 words together, they don't become one word but you see them as 2 separated words but when they stand next to each other they will mean differently. I can't really explain any further for you guys since you guys have no any basic knowledge of Vietnamese language. Plus if you consider what "Phu" can be mean in other languages? It just doesn't work to create any sort of disambiguate page for the word Phu stands alone. The only solution is to delete.Trongphu (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My rationale is that many (including me) don't know any of above. Some people reduce their searches to the parts they think are critical. Eg., suppose that I came across your name somewhere and try to search you on Wikipedia. If I didn't know that in Vietnamese names the name English speakers call last actually comes first (or am I wrong?), I would assume that your first name is Trong and your last name is Phu; as I don't know whether first name Trong is short or long, I search for what I assum to be a last name &mdash; Phu. That's why I think that having this DAB would be helpful. So, unless there is a good reason to avoid it, I would prefer to have this DAB. Keep in mind, that most of the readers of English Wikipedia indeed have no knowledge of Vietnamese. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea it's the opposite. In Vietnamese language, last name comes first then middle name then first name. Trong is my middle name and Phu is my first name. Phu stands alone can be a lot of things. It's complicated to explain. Phu can a middle name or first name for Vietnamese names. It can also be the name for many other mountains, rivers, cities... in Vietnam when combine with another word. Example: Phu when combined with Yen = Phu Yen is a name of a province in Vietnam. In Vietnamese, when we combined 2 words we don't stick them together. It's Phu Yen not Phuyen. Phu stands alone doesn't mean anything or you can say it can refer too so many things. Like when you just say "Phu" in Vietnam, people wouldn't know what or who are you referring to. How would you like to DAB it? If i put only the notable people with Phu names won't be enough to reflect what the word Phu can be use for. Plus like i said above, this is not considering what Phu can be mean in other language. I'm simply just think it's way too confusing to try to DAB it. It has so many variety. I know I'm really bad at explaining.Trongphu (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate or retarget this is the ISO language code for Phuan. (It's also the airport code for Phu Vinh, but the List of airports in Vietnam is missing it... and the airline code for Pannon Air Service, but there are two targets for that, Airline codes-P & List of defunct airlines of Europe) 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Phuan. I think a dab of sorts would be more confusing per Trongphu's analysis.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:04, 11 January 2012 (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.

Ubekibekibekibekistanstan



 * 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 delete by  under R3. →  Σ  τ  c . 05:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * → Herman Cain (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Useless redirect. Previously CSD'd. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely spurious. Next thing you know we'll be linking misunderestimate to George W. Bush... Hopefully a discussion will have a more lasting impact than a CSD tag; at least next time it can be speedied via A10. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 05:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete under R3. → Σ  τ  c . 05:33, 8 January 2012 (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.

Shawinigan Military College



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 08:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * → Collège Shawinigan (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This should be deleted because it is not a valid redirect. Collège Shawinigan is a general-admission community college (CEGEP) located at 2263 Boulevard Du Collège, Shawinigan, Quebec, with website at http://www.collegeshawinigan.ca/ (French only), and it was founded in 1968. By contrast, National Defence Shawinigan Military College is documented at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dfrp-rbif/pn-nb/70029-eng.aspx (French version here, and more description here, also in French), is located at the corner of Boulevard Royal and Trudel, and has French name Manège militaire de Shawinigan, and is an army training center for soldiers; the building was constructed in 1999. They are not the same thing; the rationale given at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects in June 2010, using an unspecified Google search as justification, is incorrect. If there were to be a Wikipedia entry for Shawinigan Military College (it's not clear that it's particularly notable), it would be its own separate standalone article. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Have at it, at the time of research - I could not find more information and had kept getting the same pages on search. I am also not fluent in French, since you have all the source, please create a new page for it. :) FireAllianceNX (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Misleading redirects are never helpful, and when there's no better target, deletion is plainly the best option.  Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as misleading redirect and to encourage creation of a new article. I hope a French speaking editor would be able to create an article for this military college.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (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.