Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 19

June 19[edit]

American University of Hawaii → American Central University[edit]

The result of the debate was delete until at least a stub can be written - this clearly isn't the right target for a redirect. WjBscribe 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is inaccurate. American University of Hawaii is a closed institution that was apparently based in Hawaii[1], not another name for American Central University based in Wyoming. Although the owner appears to be the same person, the stories are distinct.orlady 21:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt it be more useful to write a stub on the real American University of Hawaii? Would anyone object if I did this? John Vandenberg 03:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do write a stub, if you are so inclined. --orlady 12:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't bother writing a stub. I checked Google on "American University of Hawaii" and there aren't enough sources to write a decent article. Yechiel Man 22:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I thought that the court documents at http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ocp/udgi/lawsuits/AUH/ (cited above) would provide ample material for an article. --orlady 03:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be at least a stub (or redirect when appropriate) for all universities past or present, because there will be references to them. DGG 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of diploma mills → List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very subtle but extremely important difference between unaccredited institutions and diploma mills; this redirect is factually problematic and possibly libelous ElKevbo 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please delete this redirect. --orlady 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please delete this is worse than misleading. Bill Huffman 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please delete Our institution is on this list against our will, and we do indeed believe this redirect is libelous. KatiaRoma 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your institution is/was listed on the target of this redirect, which is for unaccredited institutions. If your institution was accredited, then of course the institution would have removed from that list promptly. Instead religious institutions are being discussed on the talk page and it appears that there is agreement that the list criteria needs to be refined to prevent that happening again. Your case has nothing to do with this redirect, and is definitely not libel as that article clearly states its purpose is to list unaccredited institutions. John Vandenberg 04:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects aren't libelous. There are diploma mills on this list. It is a list of diploma mills. --- RockMFR 03:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unaccredited institutions are not, by definition, diploma mills. That's simply an incorrect and ignorant statement. To label the handful of American institutions that choose not to pursue voluntary accreditation yet retain high academic standards "diploma mills" is indeed libelous. A list of diploma mills could be maintained but such a list would likely be a subset of a list of unaccredited institutions but not the same. --ElKevbo 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - However a quick scan of the relevant guidelines on redirects indicates that redirects are acceptable if they aid searching, even if it is offensive. i.e. Dubya. I doubt that a redirect can be libel, unless the targets title and synopsis doesnt clarify the matter. I havent seen any mention of libel wrt to redirects, so if there is a policy/guideline/essay on that, I would like to read that before voting on these redirects. John Vandenberg 04:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has nothing to do with being "offensive" or an aid to searching. It's blatantly factually incorrect. I don't even understand how there could be discussion on this point. --ElKevbo 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excuse me? I was pointing out that the guidelines, as far as I can see, are all pointing towards redirects being kept if they are at all useful. These redirects are useful for searchers looking for the closest match we have on Wikipedia, and for historical purposes. Both are reasons that Wikipedia:Redirect advises are appropriate reasons to keep. This is not a completely off target redirect. diploma mill is another possible target for this redirect, I'll give you that, but the current target is not inappropriate, and it certainly isnt factually incorrect. A diploma mill is essentually an unsupervised/unaccredited institution that produces worthless diplomas, and List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning is the best result we could give a searcher. Let me make sure I am 100% clear here: if I was to link to "List of diploma mills" in an article, then that could be inappropriate if it was not in context of an institution that fits within the definition of a diploma mill, however, none of these redirects are in use, so there only utility is for historical and searching purposes. That said, the target list requires work to avoid inappropriately listing institutions that are not in need of supervision or accreditation, but that doesnt make this an inappropriate search term. The discussion to improve the target list was ongoing; these rfd's and now the Afd are shooting everything in sight, which is not productive. John Vandenberg 08:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOT#DIR and also the fact that some of the institutions listed in the redirected article are currently actively seeking accreditation and some are institutions in jurisdictions that do not currently officially accredit the disciplines that those institutions offer (ie. Christian theology in Muslim-majority states or Syariah in non-Muslim majority states). To lump them in with institutions that are known diploma mills as is currently done is problematic. - Bob K 09:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The redirect indiscriminately tars all members of the set with the same brush. This is like having List of felons redirect to Nixon Administration; it's just not good practice. --Dynaflow babble 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynaflow's analogy is excellent. :-) --orlady 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree; the analogy is severely lacking. A more accurate analogy is List of felonious adminstrations redirecting to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, which includes an entry for the Nixon Administration. Notice that this has one extra step in it, and that extra step has a clarification for the sake of being accurate. John Vandenberg 11:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of alleged diploma mills → List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very subtle but extremely important difference between unaccredited institutions and alleged diploma mills; this redirect is factually problematic and possibly libelous ElKevbo 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please delete this redirect, for reasons given.--orlady 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please delete This is worse than misleading. Bill Huffman 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please delete Our institution is on this list against our will, and we do indeed believe this redirect is libelous. KatiaRoma 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Dynaflow babble 15:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:PWNAGE → Wikipedia:Ownership of articles[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 08:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is potentially incivil or combative. A former redirect from WP:PWN to this target was previously deleted (discussion), and this substantially similar one should be deleted for the same resons. -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Frankly, there's no logical connection between the redirect and the target. Yechiel Man 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about an explanation of what the abbreviation means? --Rbraunwa 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not actually an abbreviation. "p0wned/pwnd" is an Internet neologism, short for "I just owned you!" in FPS games when you kill someone. It supposedly comes from an online team that used "0wned" a lot, when someone typoed it as "p0wned" and it caught on from there. Apparently an editor was being funny by redirecting to WP:OWN. -- Kesh 06:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has an article on pwnage, in fact. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Power ownage would mean that you could beat someone so bad, it has nothing to do with ownership. TheBlazikenMaster 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I can see the connection between the redirect and the target (pwnage being a verbal noun of pwn, as ownership is to own), the word "own" in the "pwnage" concept has a different meaning. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:PWNT → Wikipedia:Banning policy[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 08:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is potentially incivil or combative. A former redirect from WP:PWN to this target was previously deleted (discussion), and this substantially similar one should be deleted for the same resons. -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and the lack of a logical connection between redirect and target. Yechiel Man 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely missing the point, bans are preventions, not "pwnage". - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This appears to redirect to Banning Policy, not Blocking Policy. I've changed the target in the header.

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pucci → Emilio_Pucci[edit]

The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. -- JLaTondre 13:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Namely, I am creating an article on UK promoter Pucci Dellanno and by searching for Pucci it is automatically redirected to Emilio Pucci Thomaslear 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Searching shows plenty of Puccis with articles; there's no reason to make this a redirect to only one of them. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.