Talk:LBU

That diploma mill
For as long as I can remember, people promoting Louisiana Baptist University have been adding a redirect at this title. And as far as I can tell they are the only ones who call it that. The sources noted iwhen it was reinserted are all user-edited; it's astroturfing. Or perhaps Gastroturfing. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What I find interesting is how did they acquire an edu web domain? Does that tell us something about Louisiana accreditation or are they distributed by the federal government? While I find their business distasteful, if the state of LA sees fit to give them the edu domain (or whoever did) and wikipedia has an article on them, it's hard to see how it cannot be on this disambiguation page. David D. (Talk) 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just started looking up Jason Gastrich. What a character.    Louisiana Baptist University is not accredited.  Anyway, I did not realize that the three references in support of inclusion were user edited, or even think to think about the consequences.  I suggested the first version per http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/LBU, but as you said, it does in fact appear to me now to be user edited.  I am not sure why that matters, though.    Ra2007 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're not Jason Gastrich? Your edits have all the hallmarks. Not sure why you are talking about user edited sources? Who are you responding too? David D. (Talk) 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am not Jason Gastrich. I was responding to Jzg here (see above, too).  I also saw this which made me research the character Jason Gastrich.   Ra2007 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see the user edited bit. He has a point. David D. (Talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See .edu, there seems to be a grandfather clause. —Random832 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rfc: Should LBU also list Louisiana Baptist University
Does policy preclude the disambiguation page for LBU from having an entry for L ouisiana B aptist U niversity? It should be noted that Louisiana Baptist University is an unaccredited educational institution. 23:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The first google hit for LBU is Louisiana Baptist University. A disambiguation page is there to simply to help guide users to content when there are naming redundancies. Based on the fact that we DO have a Louisiana Baptist University article, and that their domain name is LBU.edu and "LBU" is in their logo, I think that there is a clear cut case to include them here. Now, it would be a different matter if Louisiana Baptist University was a redlink. -Andrew c [talk] 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes... the article Louisiana Baptist University identifies them as LBU and that's their domain name... this all seems to be in the name of spiting some troll, which is pointless (trolls love to be spited), but it's plausible someone could type in LBU and be looking for Louisiana Baptist University. That's what a disambiguation page is for... it's silly we're even discussing this. --W.marsh 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are fewer than 800 Google hits linking LBU to that place, every single iteration of this page has been an attempt to promote Louisiana Baptist University, the original list proposed included it, the only references on the Web linking LBU to Louisiana Baptist University are user-edited, it is clear to me that this is blatant astroturfing. Sure the first hit on Google is the diploma mill, they ahve been working very hard at astroturfing it.  No, we do not need the alumni of Louisiana Baptist University using this to boost their tawdry diploma mill.  As Noted below, the Liberty Union Party link is tenuous, I am completely convinced that the entire purpose here is (as usual) to promote the diploma mill.  Guy (Help!) 07:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Too funny, the second web site on that google search is a Gastrich site, look at the spam located at the bottom. And check out their distinguished alumni here :eyes rolling: David D. (Talk) 07:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If we have an article on a topic with the initials LBU, why would we not have an entry on it at the appropriate disambiguation page? Guy, if you dislike the topic that much, and believe it is solely self-promotional, then take the Louisiana Baptist University article to AFD. Neıl  ☎  11:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with disliking, it's about abuse of Wikipedia to astroturf a diploma mill, and I believe there is pretty solid consensus for not doing that. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why do we still have an article on the topic? I appreciate the last AFD on the topic was a while ago (here). Having a correct disamiguation is not facilitating "astroturfing".  What would having Lousiana Baptist University disambiguated on LBU be astroturfing?  Astroturfing refers to the practice of a small group of employees of an organization faking widespread public support for that organization. I am unsure how disambiguating LBU correctly could ever be construed as astrooturfing. Neıl  ☎  14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect we have an article on the topic because its alumni love to pretend its degrees are worth more than the paper they are written on, while some WIkipedia groups have made a cottage industry of documenting substandard educational institutions. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should take this article to AFD, then, and make your case there. I'll even "vote" delete (I have read all the Gastrich stuff on Butler's website, and am convinced of the "merits" of Lousiana Baptist University).  But we have an article at present, so the mention on this disambig page needs to be there. Neıl  ☎  15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It sickens me to see this devolve into edit warring, especially from 3 admins. Shame on you all. It's really hard to have a good faith discussion when users are editing in bad faith on a live article. -Andrew c [talk] 15:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That one admin is willing to keep edit warring against consensus shouldn't mean he gets his way. Don't blame us for dealing with one revert warrior... he has no apparent support here for his stance. --W.marsh 15:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you must have a very weak stomach if that "sickens" you. Dramatic language aside, it's Guy embarking on a one-man edit war to keep his preferred version against (based on this and the AN discussion) about 8 other editors' slightly more dispassionate views. Neıl ☎  15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just in case this is not clear I think he has no support. JzG you need to put yourself in our shoes. What would suggest for your edit warring here?  There is only one route open to you, put the diploma mill up for AfD. I'll support its deletion. Unless that article os gone there is no reason to remove the link from this page. David D. (Talk) 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My congratulations to the Louisiana Baptist University Society of Sock and Meatpuppets on so successfully recruiting good editors to back up their tawdry vanispamcruftisement campaign. Two years of dogged persistence finally paid off, thanks to the "good" offices of Ra2007. No doubt he will be suitably emboldened and carry on to advocate undeletion of his page on Gastrich's vainglorious spam-riddled website. I'm out of here. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're stooges of Gastrich or are you just overreacting? Take a step back. Wikipedia is full of diploma mills, in case you have forgotten, wikipedia is full of crappy fancruft and other unnotable topics. The precedent has been set. If you were more like King Canute you'd know you can not hold back the tide and just focus on real articles. The ones that people actually read. David D. (Talk) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not what I said. What I said was, their persistence appears to have paid off, their tawdry diploma mill is now promoted as they have always wanted it to be. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And it points to an article that highlight the flaws of LBU. Now if they try and change the content of the article to a more favourable stance then i think we can react swiftly and hard. This seems like the wrong battle. David D. (Talk) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that LBU should not be a redirect to Louisiana Baptist University, which was what Gastrich & friends kept making it back in 2006. But having it as one of several items on disambiguation page is absolutely acceptable. Just because it's an unaccredited diploma mill, and just because one of Wikipedia's most troublesome former editors is associated with it doesn't mean we have to carefully avoid all mention of it everywhere. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All quite illogical. The article on Louisiana Baptist University is far from flattering, and it would seem that linking LBU to Lousiana Baptist University would work against the supposed goal of promoting Lousiana Baptist University. It would seem that if their idea was to promote, they would move Lousiana Baptist University to Lousiana Baptist University, and hope nobody catches it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.82.58 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Union Party
Maybe I'm dense, but what's the connection between "LBU" and Liberty Union Party? --B (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question, I think it came from this reference. David D. (Talk) 04:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like more astoturfing, actually. Only ten googles for LBU "Liberty Union Party" Guy (Help!) 14:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/PartyDetail.html?PartyID=37 says "Abbreviation LBU". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.82.58 (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So do and, the latter of which lists LBU as the "Federal party code" for the Liberty Union party. On the other hand, the party's own web site uses L.U.P., e.g. here. So I don't know. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If we searched the world over, would anyone doing research on the party ever type "LBU" into the search engine? If not, it doesn't really need to be on a disambiguation page. --B (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)