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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Continental capital → City-state  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wouldn't a "continental capital" simply be a capital city not located on an island? That's not the same thing as a city-state. Search results primarily gave me non-notable financial companies. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My first thought was that this would be something to do with Philadelphia, given it's role as the capital city for the Continental Congress, and there are a few uses of this in that context but it's nowhere near the primary topic on google, and on Wikipedia it's mainly in the title of a book used as a reference (Spies in the Continental Capital, Espionage Across Pennsylvania During the American Revolution; even if it weren't only a partial title match we don't have an article on the book and it appears only in the bibliography listing of the article about the author). I've not found the phrase in any of our articles related to that city - the closest is Continuity of government#United States which would not make a good target for someone using this redirect. There are a couple of uses of the term in plot summaries of fantasy novels, but not primary plot points. The most prominent use is in the lead of Perpignan, but even there "continental" appears to be used purely adjectivally not as part of a noun phrase. Given all this, the possible meaning Tavix highlights in the nomination and it's possible meaning as the capital city of a continent (although this appears to be purely theoretical, not even Brussels (my expectation for the most likely city to be given the title) appears to be called that) and really no good targets at all, I'm left at recommending deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also just realised another reason that City state is not a good target is that some city states are not continental - e.g. Singapore and (by some definitions) Malta. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. The ambiguity means that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a variety of possible meanings for this phrase seem to exist, most of which are unrelated to one another, and none of which are discussed in any article in sufficient depth to provide any useful information to someone who searches for this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurricane Sandy series → 2012 World Series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not a term that enjoys usage. The World Series was in San Francisco and Detroit, cities that were not effected by the storm (unlike say the 1989 World Series that was directly effected by an earthquake). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tavix's nomination - although they meant to say "cities that were not affected...". Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom – the term is not in common use, and what uses there are do not refer to the World Series. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 deleted per G7. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurricane steve harvey → Hurricane Harvey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect makes no sense. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not seeing how "steve" has anything to do with this.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. J4lambert (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• -4 (number) → 4 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• -999 (number) → 999 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• −999 (number) → 999 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• −3 (number) → 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• −2 (number) → 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I doubt that anyone would search for "-4 (number)" and "-4" is not in the target Dom from Paris (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the redirect is too new for page view statistics to be available, but -999 (number) has redirected to 999 (number) since December 2009 and has received 12 hits so far this year, -999 is not explicitly mentioned in the article. -40 (number) has redirected to 40 (number) since July 2005 and has received 116 hits so far this year, -40 is not mentioned in the article (although 40-40 and WD-40 are). -1 (number) redirects to the article -1 about the number, -0 (number) redirects to the signed zero article about the number. There are no other pages starting with "-" and including "(number)" as of the download of all titles in ns0 dated 20:38 yesterday. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to start a discussion at talk:40 (number) about whether mentioning -40 as the point where the Celsius and Farenheit scales meet, so it would probably be wise to hold off discussing that redirect until the discussion concludes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been pointed out to me that negative 40 is mentioned in the target article, just using a minus character ("−40") not a hyphen-minus ("-40"). I've checked and "−4" is not mentioned in 4 (number), although "4−" is in the context of rowing nomenclature. "−999" is not mentioned at all, so I'm adding that redirect to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• After another thought, I've looked at added −999 (number), −3 (number) and −2 (number) to this nomination. Their target articles make no mention of the negatives. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the creator of the redirects at -4, -3, and -2 also created 1027, 1028, 1030, 1032, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1040, 1050, 1070, 1080, 1090, 1110, 1120, 1130, 1140, 1150, 1160, 1170, 1180, 1190, 1350, 1400, 1450, 1500, 1550, 1700, 1800, and 1900. (I may have missed a few). I'll try to add them when I get back from some errands. All recently created unnecessary (but generally appropriate, in the sense that, if we had trivia about those numbers, sections of 1000 is where we should expect to find the information) redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is only about the negative number redirects where the negative number is not discussed at the target. For the sake of clarity it's probably best not to introduce other redirects into this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -4, -3, -2, as recently created redirects, which, although not necessarily individually harmful, part of a pattern which would be harmful if continued. An article at -2 (number) was previously deleted; some of the history there may be relevant. Lean Keep on the "-999"s; although no information on -999 is presently in 999 (number), that's where WP:WP Numbers guidelines suggest the information would be found if there was some. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Information on these numbers are not mentioned at the target articles, creating confusion for those looking for such information. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reason that these redirects are there is because most negative integers are not reputable enough to have their own pages, so they retarget to their positive equivalent, which has many of the same properties. Even negative integer redirects to integer. I shall note that redirects like -2, −2, −3, −4, −3 (number), and −2 (number) are older (at least a year for each) than the redirects that you have listed, and it might be a good idea to create and execute a program that for each integer Z from 2 (because −1 has its own page) to 100 or so, redirects -Z, −Z, -Z (number, and −Z (number) to Z (number). It would be unlikely that any other negative number would get its own page, as even Negabinary, Negaternary, and other notable negative base number systems redirect to Negative base. By the way, should pages like 222 really serve as pages for 222 CE and not disambiguation pages for 222 CE, 222 BCE, and 222 (number), especially for numbers where the actual number (like 1729) or the BCE year (like 509) is significant? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 02:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Titles 1 to 100 were recently reclaimed from year articles after discussion at Talk:AD 1/Archive 1 but there was no consensus to go beyond 100. Certes (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there also a redirect from the page with a proper minus sign instead of a stubby little hyphen? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Michael Hardy: The redirects listed at the top are the only ones (in the most recent database dump) that start with either a minus sign (−) or a hyphen-minus (-), end in "(number)" AND don't have content in the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is a redirect from −4 to 4 (number). But none from -4. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I only looked for those that end with "(number)". If you want to add others to this nomination please tag them and list them at the top. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all negative (number) that don't actually go to anything that discusses that particular negative number or media title. The ones without (number) should be further discussed. For −2, it should be converted into a dab since I do see some search results for Minus Two as a media title such as Negatives 2 and EMD Dash 2. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've created dabs for −2 and −5 since they have media titles with that format. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I originally created the -999 (number) redirect under one of my old usernames. The reason was that −999 (number) was then an actual (if non-notable) stub discussing its use as a sentinel value in some computer systems, which I redirected to 999 (number) (presumably on the grounds that this wasn't worth an article but perhaps it would be worth a sentence in the article on its absolute value). For whatever reason, this use is not currently mentioned on 999 (number); if we could find a reliable source for it, adding it would explain this redirect. I don't have much of an opinion on the other small negatives. On the one hand, they are so non-notable that there isn't anything to say about them, even at their absolute values; on the other hand, some people might expect a few to exist based on the existence of −1, and redirects are cheap. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: Such redirects should point to a negative number where available, but obviously, this is not the case here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all If there is no content at the target page regarding the redirect, there is no reason to confuse readers by sending them there. shoy (reactions) 14:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Nuphar advena. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Large yellow pond lily → Nymphaeaceae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this the most appropriate target? Note Yellow pond-lily redirects to Nuphar advena. If it's not a recognised common name we should delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google search indicates that "large yellow pond lily" and "yellow pond lily" are both US English vernacular names for Nuphar advena. UK English tends to use spatterdock for Nuphar advena. So at first sight it would seem that a redirect to Nuphar advena is in order, but youall might want to check some actual statistics. UK English refers to all these plants as water-lilies, but if pond lily is treated as meaning the same large yellow pond lily would be a descriptive phrase referring to plants from Nelumbo (not Nymphaeaceae) as well as Nymphaea and Nuphar; maybe even some Nymphoides (also not Nymphaeaceae) if there are any large-flowered species. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In the light of user:Lavateraguy above, my preferred outcome would be delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In the absence of further comments here I was bold and changed to to a redirect to Nuphar advena - Google's corpus has a fair number of pages citing it as a (North American English) vernacular name for that species. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 age helps the keep arguments, but I think they're strong enough on their own as is. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jean Berkey - Washington State Senator → Jean Berkey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Malformed title, not useful. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unambiguous and completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless detritus left over from a cut and paste move that should have been speedied at the time. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a likely search term, but neither ambiguous nor misleading, so there is no harm in keeping this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Monster on the Hill → Bradley Raymond  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Director of an upcoming film in 2020, but not the screenwriters (Matt Lieberman and Etan Cohen), producer, or book author. Created by blocked user. Draft was redirected to Bradley Raymond as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I believe that the book itself is notable, and WP:REDLINK appears to apply here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore this version and move without redirect to draft space where it can be incubated for now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and CoffeeWithMarkets – the film probably will be notable at some point, and deleting at this point needn't prevent keeping the content as a draft as Tavix suggests, but at present there's no particularly useful target for this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.