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 Keep, book created, no longer within scope for Redirects for Discussion. --Taelus (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Book:Coldplay → Book:X&Y (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete Leftover from a page move. The book never should have been here, and this redirect impedes the creation of a book about Coldplay. Nothing link to this page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Book created. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn/Speedy keep since a Coldplay book was created since this RfD started. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Scientists opposing global warming → List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Scientists who oppose global warming → List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete as confusing as the target page lists skeptics of the mainstream scientific viewpoint regarding the current state of global warming while both of these redirects would be more likely to be used to find someone who basically accepts/accepted the current consensus (such as Al Gore's professor, Roger Revelle). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: I would think that most people would in fact expect this to mean, "scientists opposed to mainstream global warming theory." In other words, it's a shorthand. I guess I assume that, except for some real fringe characters, scientists on both sides of the debate "oppose global warming," i.e. they don't want it to happen; it's just that one side thinks it is happening, and the other doesn't. Looking through the first page of Google hits for "opposition to global warming" seems to bear out my view. In fact, you get things like the quote in the Boston Globe here: "'This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming,' says Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto companies involved in the lawsuit." He means it the same way I mean it. Likewise, in the LA Times (paywall, reprinted here) we read, "For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year . . . ." It's not as though the energy industry wanted the earth to heat up, just that they opposed global warming theory.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as the phrases each have two (apparently) contradictory meanings: people who oppose the process of global warming and people who oppose the theory of global warming... and it is not the case that one of these two sets is a subset of the other. Searching for the phrase via the search engine would be more likely to avoid "surprises" for some readers/editors. Thus it would be better to eliminate the possibility of confusion by deleting the shorthand titles. B.Wind (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see how anyone would enter this title expecting people who oppose letting global warming to happen. I think anyone typing this is very likely looking for a list of scientists who are opposed to the theory. Oren0 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the provided reason to delete does not fit the guidelines above. Q Science (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it does - see #1 and #2 of WP:RFD#DELETE, particularly the latter. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your problem is with the definition of Global Warming. There are at least 3 very different definitions. The one most news papers use appears to be "CO2 is causing the end of everything". With that definition, I don't see any confusion in the link you want deleted. One of the current failings of wikipedia is the lack of acknowledgement that there are multiple, conflicting definitions. Q Science (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "multiple definititions" to which you speak only pertain to the term "global warming". The fact that the problem lies with the phrase "opposing global warming" - it has a different meaning from "against the concept of global warming" or "against the theory of global warming". It is this multiplicity of interpretations of the phrase that causes potential confusion. This is a case in which the redirect itself, by the multitude of interpretations of its title, can be confusing (after all, there are scientists who believe that the current warming is part of a cyclical phenomenon that "happens" to be a good thing; there are others with the exact contrary viewpoint). We don't need this confusion here, particularly if the redirect itself is pointing toward an article which itself is a point of contention with many editors (thus the article probation that I saw on a couple of editors' talk pages). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Amundsen Ice Plain → Amundsen Sea (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The feature does not exist. It is therefore not clear what it should redirect to. Therefore likely to cause confusion. Not a likely search term, so not useful. Existance of feature seems to hinge on one source, a 2006 book by Tim Flanery. As an expert on the area I can say that his reference to this feature is certainly incorrect. this leaves us with a misleading redirect originating from a single incorrect source. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The source might not actually be incorrect, because I added the information to the article by memory from I book I read. When I go to the library again, I'll try to check the book, as well as the name of the feature as I might have remembered it incorrectly, although the contents of the book are available online, but it did show that in a 2004 study that the collapse of this feature is likely to lead to a sea level rise of 1.3m. ~AH1^(TCU) 13:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think you are wrong it is the source. Searching for the phrase on google books gets one hit for this particular book. Polargeo (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. In addition to the Flannery book (which you can see here), Google Scholar shows another result from a Canadian student here. Given the international scientific interest in Antarctic ice, it seems safe to say that if this feature existed you would find more than this.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do usually hide behind my wikipedia persona but on this occasion I will reveal myself as Dr Julian Scott of the British Antarctic Survey [1]. As an expert I confirm that this is a mistake. If you do not wish to take my word for it (and please trust me my word is a lot more accurate than the links I am about to give) you can check the USGS Antarctic database and the SCAR database here Polargeo (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the issue isn't just whether or not the ice plain exists, but whether the term is sufficiently used that someone might conceivably type it into the search box, and if so where they should be taken. There's no Brock Obama or Star wars 7-9, either, but we have redirects for them.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, at least for now. Neither the one book containing the misnomer nor the thesis is being cited with any regularity, but should a review for the book discussing this so-called "feature" be presented in reliable sources or the thesis be cited in peer-reviewed journals or books, then... and only then... should this issue be revisited. After all this is not to be confused with the Ross Ice Shelf, for example. There are too few instances of "Amundsen Ice Plain" to justify keeping the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all redirecting to the Amundsen Sea is incorrect because an "ice plain" if we accept this feature exists is a feature on land. What they are actually refering to in the book is likely to be an incorrect name for part of Pine Island Glacier but without reading the book I cannot confirm this. I also believe a redirect to Pine Island Glacier with no explanation of this feature in the article will just be confusing and therefore the existance of this redirect, whatever its target, is likely to cause more confusion than would be caused by its removal. Few people who type in Brock Obama are going to be left scratching thier heads when they turn up at Barak Obama but here they would certainly be confused if they turned up at Pine Island Glacier. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, the purpose of this discussion is not whether or not the named feature actually exists - as you can tell by this discussion, there is a stipulation by consensus to your expertise in this matter. The purpose of a redirect is to help someone find information on a particular topic even if it does not exist. Redirects exist to guide people from incorrect spellings, misnomers, and obsolete terms that are likely to be used as a search item (per WP:RFD#KEEP); so the issue as to the existence of the purported feature is actually irrelevant to this discussion. The question is "How likely is this term being used in a search?" So, if it's one mistaken and extremely-rarely-cited source (and that's it), the conclusion would be that the gain of deleting the redirect is greater than the benefit of keeping it for that highly-improbable person who would search for it, and the redirect should be deleted (at least for as long as the term is not being bandied about). Sometimes it might be better to keep a redirect only to point it to a target that basically states that the term in question does not exist in reality, either. In this case, it's too close to call for me; thus I remain Neutral and accept your assertion that the feature does not exist. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merdazzurri → F.C. Internazionale Milano (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete as unneeded unlinked vulgarity - it means "Crap blues" Rumping (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, appears to be an attack/vandalism redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 --Taelus (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Blpldispute → Template:BLP sources (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Awkward name. What's this "l" between BLP and dispute? Moreover, An article without references is just unreferenced not "disputed". Magioladitis (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 19104 → University City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (links to redirect • history • stats) 

It redirects to University City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania because according to that article the zip code is one of the zip codes for that city. But is this something that would be normal practice? It was tagged for speedy deletion, but I'm taking here due to objections. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't this just be a dictionary definition, thus reside a short definition on Wiktionary instead of as a redirect here? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are lots of countries that use 5 digit numeric postal codes, so, at least in theory, 19104 could refer to places in Algeria, Brazil, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Peurto Rico, Serbia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Turkkey, Taiwan, Ukraine and/or the Vatican City as well as the United Sates (based on the table at Postal code#Formats of postal codes by country and time). As such, automatically redirecting these to the US locations would be (imo) cultural bias. There are exceptions, where the US zipcode is clearly a primary searching phrase, e.g. 90210. Unless this code is widely used as a search term, I don't think we should keep it. Setting up dab pages for every single possible postcode would be impractical. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks like it has no traffic at all pretty much, so it isn't a plausible search term, let alone for one single location out of many possibilities. --Taelus (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per the above. I have doubts about people searching for a city using it's zip codes, and the same code could apply to other areas, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Google has to earn its money somehow and this (U.S. ZIP codes) is one arena in which it is better to let Google be the source of information than our encyclopedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I nominated it for speedy delete initially. Thryduulf basically said what I was trying to say, which is that five-digit numbers aren't necessarily aimed solely at US zip codes, so per Thryduulf. Şłџğģő 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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