Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 1

February 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2011

Eric-2



 * 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. No evidence that it contains 4-Methylethcathinone. Ruslik_ Zero 14:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → 4-Methylethcathinone (links to redirect • [ history] • )

No evidence that the drug sold as Eric-2 contains 4-Methylethcathinone. I removed mention of this name from the target article as I could find no reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If the studies published in the Lancet and British Medical Journal are anything to go by, "Eric" and similar suppliers of these "bath salt" type products have sold random blends of substituted cathinones under various names, but there seems to be no standardisation or even consistency of ingredients between different batches sold under the same name. The only exception seems to be "Eric-4" which seems generally agreed (albeit in the absence of any acceptable reliable sources) to be the synthetic cannabinoid compound 1-Pentyl-3-(4-methoxybenzoyl)indole. All of the others though seem to be more in the nature of brand names for whatever cathinone derivative (or mixture of ingredients) was most easily available at the time, and would more appropriately be redirected to Designer drug rather than to the page of any particular ingredient. Meodipt (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I had heard that to be true of the NRG-series, but does Eric-series share the same reputation for inconsistencies? I knew "Eric" tried to hide their IUPAC names, but he claims that is to keep his competition from synthesizing the same chems and underselling him. I'm struggling to find reliable sources on most of these RC's, but I still feel that anything substantial should be shared. Did you find a reliable source saying that Eric-4 was the same as RCS-4? I almost want to find a cheap liquid chromatography setup and solve these mysteries myself! Enix150 (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable testing needs GCMS and NMR, and any independent results would be prohibited here as original research until it was published in a peer reviewed journal. And yes, "Eric" is well known for selling inconsistent mixes of compounds under the same brand name. Of course there are no reliable sources, "Eric" was claiming that his Eric-4 was AM-694 until it was tested and found it to be 1-pentyl-3-(4-methoxybenzoyl)indole... Meodipt (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, but it was more of a pipe dream than an actual plan. I've only ever worked with an automated liquid chromatography setup anyway, but I assume GCMS and NMR are prohibitively expensive? I understand that the source may not be suitable for wiki, but I am still interested in this Eric character. Where do you find that information about Eric-4 being tested? Was there a newspaper article written about him or something? Enix150 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nah, just heard a rumour late last year that 1-pentyl-3-(4-methoxybenzoyl)indole had shown up in synthetic cannabis blends in Sweden (which had reputedly contained "Eric-4" as an active ingredient) but it wasn't published anywhere that I'm aware of...until a while later Sweden published the latest version of their list of controlled drugs and there it was at the bottom of the list - so rumour was confirmed! Meodipt (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There was this newspaper article published about him a while back though if you hadn't seen it already? Meodipt (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Bento Gonçalves (city)



 * 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 (non-admin closure) → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four  ♣ ← 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Bento Gonçalves, Rio Grande do Sul (links to redirect • [ history] • )

DELETE - unnecessary redirect, there's already a disambiguation page for the expression "Bento Gonçalves" and it's unlikely anyone will type the redirect title in the URL. I've already fixed all links to the redirect. Bresolin (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Contrary to the nomination statement, it is very common for people to type these sorts of dismabiguated titles into the url bar (and arriving at the redirect through other means too). In this specific case it's likely to be visited by people who know there is (or likely to be) more than one article that could be titled "Bento Gonçalves", wants to read about the city and knows that Wikipedia uses parenthetical disambiguation in their article titles (which is likely to be most people who've seen two or more articles with disambiguated titles). Additionally, it's doing no harm where it is - being "unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to Thryduulf's arguments, the redirect was created as part of a pagemove and helps to both document the move and capture any external links which still directly refer to the original title.  Rossami (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)