Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 27

June 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 27, 2008

List of cults → List of groups referred to as cults in government documents

The result of the debate was no consensus. Redirecting to cult might be a good solution, but I'm not going to try to find consensus where there is none. --- RockMFR 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate and contentious re-creation of a deleted redirect. Wikipedia does not have a "list of cults", that was just settled at AfD for "List of groups referred to as cults" and this was deleted as a direct result of that AfD. I prodded the redirect and ask the creating editor to speedy it which he did but both removed by a third editor hence this AfD. Full disclosure - I mistakenly listed this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cults, since closed to bring it here. Justallofthem (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. This is better handled in a link from the Cult article, and it's been added there. --GoodDamon 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The AfD did not deal directly with the issue of having a "list of cults" - it dealt with a specific article. That article was deleted because many people expressed oppostion to aspects of the article, such as its title ("...referred to as...") or the criteria for inclusion. Few people expressed outright opposition to having any sort of list. It would be a mistake to use the AfD as justification for deleting every article or redirect with a similar name. This redirect does no harm and serves a useful purpose to readers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral I created this redirect, but upon reflection feel that the link I subsequently added in Cult to the List of groups referred to as cults in government documents achieves the same purpose in a more effective way, without the POV drawbacks of the "List of cults" title. Jayen466 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen466 (20:02): "achieves the same purpose in a more effective way"
Illogical. A search for "list of cults" won't find the link.
POV drawbacks are of no concern in redirect space. "redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" (#Neutrality of redirects). Milo 23:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WP:RFD quotes; I confess I was not aware of the finer points of redirect policy. Given that policy exempts redirects from NPOV requirements, I've retracted my delete vote. Jayen466 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. "List of cults" greatly exceeds merely plausible as a search term – a 2008-06-27 Google search got 13,300 hits for "list of cults". "If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect." (#The guiding principles of RfD)
2. The redirect is not offensive. "Cult" is now legally neither "threatening, abusive or insulting". See Cult#Stigmatization and discrimination (diff). (#Reasons for deleting)
3. The often claimed issue of the previous and identically named redirect (with a different target) being a POV term is not a reason for deletion. "...redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" (#Neutrality of redirects)
4. The subject matter (lists of named groups identified in connection with cultic concerns) is commonly represented outside Wikipedia by terms considered non-neutral within Wikipedia. "The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms." (#Neutrality of redirects)
5. I find it useful. Only one person needs to do so to keep the redirect. "Someone finds them useful." (#Reasons for not deleting)
Milo 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a move to rename List of groups referred to as cults in government documents to "List of government documents on cults". I see that as all the more reason to get rid of this "List of cults". Wikipedia does not have a "list of cults" and it is misleading and a disservice to imply that we do. Let people that type that in find nothing and then go back to the cult article which includes relevant links. No-one will get lost. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep saying that we don't have a list of cults. List of groups referred to as cults in government documents, bar one or two short sections that talk about government publications rather than cults themselves, is, in all but name, a list of cults, so this should redirect there. It's useful, helpful and logical.--Serviam (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justallofthem (22:36): "Let people that type that in find nothing"
This suggestion violates #The guiding principles of RfD:

"The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for."

Furthermore, redirect space is not a POV spin zone. When real world readers search for "List of cults", the current redirect will lead them to what the vast majority of global citizens considers a list of cults. Save your political incorrectness arguments for article space where they may have some validity. Milo 23:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the vast majority of global citizens ROFL!!!! Milo now has the uncanny ability to predict what the billions of Chinese and Indians think. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree with a particular conclusion for cause, but mocking literature-survey sample theory is not the mark of an educated person.
Milo 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the mark for an non-educated person (I would use a stronger word here, if I could), is the uncanny lack of ability to understand that the Global village include other countries besides the the US and Europe. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply comment below. Milo 06:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have a "list of cults" I understand and respect your point. On the other hand, it is true that a number of countries, notably France and Belgium, have generated such a list, causing concern for religious freedom in these countries abroad, notably in the U.S. ([1]). As such their "list of cults" is a notable topic that users might conceivably look for, no matter where they stand in this debate. Jayen466 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are for disambiguation. A search for "list of cults" is not ambiguous any more. The second one (redlink) was the navigation plate name for List of groups referred to as cults and it's gone. The present target has the only remaining list of (referred-to-as) cults at Wikipedia. Milo 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we may have only one page that fits the search-term "list of cults' with great accuracy. But others may slot into a disambiguation-page in the future, and some people regard the List of new religious movements as overlapping. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page as Pedant17 suggested above - that editor took all my ideas out of my brain all of a sudden! If that doesn't work, I support the redirect the way it is. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work. When a reader wants to see a "list of cults", they don't want an egghead list of cult researchers. They want to see a list that has Scientology on it. Milo 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example. Unless they want to see also a list relating to cults, such as List of orgs founded post 1920 and referred to as cults. -- I agree that List of cult and new religious movement researchers has only marginal relevance here. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page is something completely different: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title. Not applicable here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally we do agree. One of those times was about the "overwhelming infobox", at some cult template I think. I've taken the liberty of moving Pedant17's giant inline reference, a navigation plate, to a footnote section below. Milo 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People associate the single word "cult" with more than one topic: it makes this redirect a good candidate for turning into a disambiguation page. And we get more flexibility as well. As WP:RFD says: "Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia." A "disambiguation link" page offers a little more flesh than a re-direct. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jossi (02:10): "...non-educated person .... lack of ability to understand that the Global village include other countries besides the the US and Europe."
No problem here – by that standard, the evidence is that I'm educated.
• I was one of the leading global-perspective editors at LOGRTAC, and I regularly mentioned the global citizens concept to make that point (hits in LOGRTAC talk archives 7,8,9,10,12).
• I began such global work with the French Report (unofficial translation), the single most important document in the history of cultic controversies.
• I worked through the criteria issues for foreign words meaning "cult", with the result being a consensus method for unambiguous references to such words in all foreign articles.
• I initiated the Cyrillic Russian portion of the debate about "cult of personality", with a successful result. (Had LOGRTAC continued, written Chinese was on the horizon, since they have an anti-cult law. Japanese, language of Aum Shinrikyo (candidate for the worst cult of all), may have a lot of sources.)
But are you hinting that the vast majority of global citizens outside of the US and Europe, don't dislike what they perceive as cults?
Jayen466 convinced me at the LOGRTAC DRV that non-anglo Europe is much tougher on cults at the populist and newspaper level than is the USA, and he also provided a Washington Post report of rabid anti-LDS sentiment in Russia.
ROC China is a particularly poor choice for your counterexample. • China Issues Anti-Cult Law - 1999-10-30 "Religious cult is a problem faced by many governments in the world." • Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), 1999-11-19: 'China's U.S. ambassador, Li Zhaoxing, .... "In America, you don't like cults," ... "Neither do the Chinese government and people."' China is literally worse than death on cults (but the evidence links are just too ghastly to post).
India, reputed as the land of a thousand religions, must be fairly tolerant of groups that elsewhere would be considered cults. But Sathya Sai Baba as a shocking government-'untouchable' cult scandal seems to be legend in India. The government has struggled with cult-listed Ananda Marga for decades. And surely few in India have not learned about centuries of Thuggee horrors as one template for what is a cult.
An India Google search turned up an apostate (to whom I won't link as a courtesy), who wrote: "A crucial change came from the Jonestown cult suicides of 1978. When 912 people died in Jim Jones's Guyana compound, from cyanide poisoning or bullet, the whole world noticed how dangerous cults could be."
Finally, while Al-qaeda seems to have tepid support in some radicalized populations, the majority of the whole world dislikes and fears it. The latest Google search yields 1,070,000 hits for Al-qaeda & cult.
Milo 06:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Milomedes (talk · contribs), though Pedant17 (talk · contribs) also brings up a very interesting idea which could do with some further discussion - I would not be opposed to that option either. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure why we're bringing up an AfD to an article that is not the target article. As I see it, government listing of a group as a cult is about the best way to define the group as one. (The most common method is really public opinion, but that's not easily measurable, and especially difficult as an indicator when opinion goes both ways.) Ergo, if someone comes to wikipedia looking for a list of cults, this is the ideal target. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this redirect is hopelessly POV, and I'm actually quite surprised it exists. The article it redirects to is not a 'list of cults'; if it is, it should just be called 'List of cults', but the debates on that page suggest it's something different entirely. Keeping this redirect as it is would be implicitly stating that the official classifications of those groups as cults is correct, which is surely a violation of WP:NPOV. Ironically enough, the now-deleted LOGRTAC page would probably have been the best place to redirect this; but without it, I can't see any reasonable and neutral target. Terraxos (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I have just noticed that List of terrorist organizations redirects to List of designated terrorist organizations, which is essentially the same as this redirect. I have serious concerns about both of these, but if it's Wikipedia precedent to take official government statements on such matters as factually correct, then perhaps this should be kept as well. :/ Terraxos (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was covered twice above: "redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" (#Neutrality of redirects). Milo 05:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the redirect to Cult. From there the user can navigate all sorts of ways, but we might as well keep a useful search term. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Avoid deleting redirects if: "They aid searches on certain terms. " and Someone finds them useful.", Also, "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." I see no reason for this redirect to not exist. --Phirazo 21:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambiguation page, as the meaning of it is otherwise ambiguous or redirect to "Cult" for explanation of all meanings of the word, that is often misused and evolving making this page otherwise impossible to be free from POV. Wikidās ॐ 13:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV redirects are ok; this issue was covered three times above: "redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" (#Neutrality of redirects). Milo 05:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is misleading. If a person wants to know about cults they can go to that article where the government report article is listed. Although Expolidicle's suggestion is also good to change the redirect to Cult. Just-watch (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You, Just-watch, registered June 26 with a sophisticated knowledge of Wikipedia and cults. Are you a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the nominator Justallofthem, aka JustaHulk, aka Justanother? See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother Milo 06:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral (leaning on delete) as it does redirect to a page that list cults (as referenced by some governments in their documents). Nevertheless it looks, currently, pointless: Searching for "list of cults" I get "list of cults" in 2nd place behind... "List of groups referred to as cults in government documents"; Searching for "list cults" I get "list of cults" in 2nd *page* while "List of groups referred to as cults in government documents" is at the first page. So this redirect is actually cluttering the search function, instead of making it easier to find it's target page - Nabla (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes

[ † Cults navigation plate footnote to Pedant17 00:49, 29 June 2008 above ]

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

79-73 → Carolina-Duke rivalry

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect appears to have been created the day after a basketball game finished Duke 73 Carolina 79. It's hardly the only game to have finished 79-73, nor especially notable as a score. Good result, though. ;) Hippo (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Little relavance to the topic. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am tempted to say "speedy-delete as vandalism". The creator's other edits seem mostly reasonable, though, so I will give him/her the benefit of doubt and assume that this was merely an error in judgment. Delete. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a little bit of fan celebration, but useless as a redirect. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WTFG → wikt:Appendix:Internet slang

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This abbreviation is not listed on wiktionary, so inviting the reader to follow this soft redirect only means they'll be wasting time.  --Lambiam 08:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as redirect with no target. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per UsaSatsui: A redirect to a red link or nonexsistent target. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not a redirect with no target- the target does exist, but this item isn't on the page. That makes it useless as a redirect, however. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this were a common acronym, I'd argue to keep it and update the Wiktionary appendix page. A google search turns up so few relevant hits, however, that I doubt they'd leave it in the list. It's more protologism than even neologism today. Delete as trivia (though not speedily since the target page does exist - it's just not relevant enough). Rossami (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Louis Round Wilson Academy → University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 22:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of mystery redirect. Looks like "Louis Round Wilson Academy" is a sub-entity of a sub-entity of UNC that hasn't ever, and isn't likely to be ever mentioned in the UNC page, let alone have it's own article. Actually I'm not ever sure it even still exists as I can't find any mention since 2006. Hippo (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Actually there are 34 hits on the UNC site for the Academy and it has its own web page www.theknowledgetrust.org. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above "keep" justification would hold water if the target Wikipedia article mentions "Louis Round Wilson Academy", but there is no such mention to give it context. Therefore, for Wikipedia purposes, it is a most unlikely search item; therefore, delete. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirty-four hits on Google is trivial - and if all 34 were on one site, it would stand to reason that a person looking for information about it would look at the UNC site, not here. It's not the content of the UNC site that determines inclusion on Wikipedia: WP:N and WP:RS have a major chunk of it. Since there is no context in the target article, delete the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_27&oldid=1069797304"