Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

September 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 22, 2021.

Somebody Somewhere (TV series)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 30#Somebody Somewhere (TV series)

Vitamin E oil

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 only really strong consensus here is that the status quo is incorrect. Whether deletion or retargetting is the more preferable is less clear, but reading the comments I find that the argument that retargetting to Vitamin E would be confusing was not really refuted, which combined with BDD's argument regarding confusion strengthens the case for deletion enough for me to call a weak consensus. If the situation changes and we do gain content that explicitly uses the term "vitamin E oil" at some other title then a redirect to that would be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While many products that could be considered "vitamin E oil" contain the target compound, there is little to no discussion of this at the target article. More discussion about Vitamin E products exists at the parent article Vitamin E. Additionally, since food oils are often a natural source of vitamin E, this redirect is somewhat ambiguous, so deletion could be considered as well. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vitamin E oil is the ingredient in vape fluid that is very likely responsible for that outbreak of deaths back in 2019 from Vaping-associated pulmonary injury, as stated in many WP:RS, such as CDC: Vitamin E Likely Culprit in Vaping Cases. It is not Vitamin E, it is vitamin E acetate, a synthetic. The redirect is to the correct article, even if there might be other (hypothetical) targets, because that's the most important one. If that article doesn't mention it, it should. It is conceivable that actors who have purposes other than building the encyclopedia have sanitized the articles. It could be made a disambig, if there are many targets, it could be made a stand-alone article, or the target could be changed. In any case, deletion would not serve the purpose of building Wikipedia. I urge the nominator to withdraw this nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 00:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think the best outcome here is to use the term in the current target article with respect to the context of vaping liquid. Right now, the redirect is potentially confusing, as "oil" is not used in the target article. While I mentioned deletion as a possibility, I was not advocating for that. This is Redirects for Discussion, not Redirects for Deletion, and I felt how best to handle this redirect should be discussed. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on whether to retarget to Vitamin E or add content at the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vitamin E per nom, in the absence of content at the current target linking it to the vaping context. Jay (Talk) 20:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am leaning towards Delete after the further explanations by nom, if there is no specific mention of "Vitamin E oil" in any article. The mention of just "oil" in Vitamin E is not sufficient to provide context. Jay (Talk) 06:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I dug into this a little more. I certainly agree that the current target is involved with vaping disease, but our content at Vaping-associated pulmonary injury seems to indicate that α-tocopheryl acetate is merely an ingredient in the vape liquid, not that it is the vaping liquid itself. The CDC article linked above does not use the term "vitamin E oil" nor do any of the WP articles above. Chemically, both α-tocopheryl acetate and the various compounds that are considered vitamin E such as α-tocopherol are viscous liquids that may be called oils. So then the question becomes whether "Vitamin E oil" is an alternative name for α-tocopheryl acetate, for Vitamin E more generally, or is an ambiguous term. There are various products called "Vitamin E oil" that come up with a quick Google search. Indeed one indicates α-tocopheryl acetate as its main ingredient, while others (1, 2, 3, 4) simply include a mixture of natural oils containing vitamin E and/or are spiked with purified vitamin E. So I think this reiterates and supports my original nomination that the term is not specific enough to target α-tocopheryl acetate and should either target the broader article Vitamin E or be deleted as an ambiguous term likely to cause confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vitamin E with {{R from more specific}}Coastside (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The redirect implies a discrete substance, which we don't have coverage of. If there's potential for confusion with a harmful substance, all the more reason to be careful. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2021 (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.

Template:User:Destroyeraa/Editwar

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. ✗plicit 02:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same as below, transclusion markup would have the same effect if this is deleted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:23, 22 September 2021 (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.

Template:User:BracketBot/inform

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. ✗plicit 02:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same rationale as below: Transclusion markup will have the exact same effect if this is deleted, and this avoids a potentially confusing XNR. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:20, 22 September 2021 (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.

Template:User:BoldLuis/tlxl

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. ✗plicit 02:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Left over from move to the right namespace. Since it redirects to a title that is the same minus the Template: prefix, deleting it will do nothing, as anything transcluding {{User:BoldLuis/tlxl}} will now transclude that userpage rather than this template that redirects to that userpage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:15, 22 September 2021 (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.

Aldhi Kecut

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. ✗plicit 02:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as the redirect makes no sense. Searching "Aldhi Kecut" brings back nothing in search engines except Wikipedia mirrors. The history of this article has sources all related to Elkan Baggott and not Kecut. Additionally, Persita Tangerang has no mention of Kecut anywhere so the redirect is unhelpful. The article's creator had previously created football hoaxes and this appears to be another. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 22 September 2021 (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.

Top Seed Open

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 2020 Top Seed Open. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was a redirect to Lexington Challenger until it changed by an IP user to be a circular redirect, with the rationale "The Top Seed Open was a tournament hosted by Ace Deuce, Inc. dba Top Seed Tennis Club and is not affiliated in with the Lexington Challenger Tournament. They are two separate tournaments. However Top Seed Tennis Club is a sponsor of the Lexington Challenger Tournament". I'm not familiar with either of these tennis tournaments, but either the original redirect should be restored or this redirect deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Lexington Challenger does not mention "Top Seed Open", though the 2020 Women's Singles and Doubles articles are titled 2020 Top Seed Open – Singles and 2020 Top Seed Open – Doubles. Pinging @Himeshlala: who created the original redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned at WP:TENNIS. Natg 19 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • copied from WP:TENNIS @Natg 19: Essentially, the Lexington Challenger had been a male and female tournament up until 2019 and was officially known as the Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships. Since Challenger tennis tournaments typically go through many different tournament sponsors over the years, it is easier to go with just a generic article name, using the host city and then Challenger, hence the name Lexington Challenger. However, the women's edition of the tournament in 2020 was upped to WTA Tour level with the pandemic affecting the calendar, so that edition of the tournament picked up a different sponsor, in this case Top Seed. Whether or not they are technically the same tournament I have no idea, but I feel like the original redirect to Lexington Challenger would suffice. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    A previous RfD (WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 6#Domina Vacanze) where a team had multiple sponsors and a sponsor sponsored multiple teams, and the sponsor's name became the team's name, was solved by disambiguate. Jay (Talk) 09:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 22 September 2021 (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.

Water4

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 List of water-related charities. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no apparent relationship between the subject of this redirect and the target, and the redirect is to a non-existent section. The edit summary says that it is explained in the article, but it isn't. Request that redirect be deleted as useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a mention of this in the article when the redirect was created [1] but it's since been edited out for being unsourced and promotional. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to List of water-related charities where they have an entry. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of mention. It only makes sense to mention it at that list if there's encyclopedic content on it somewhere, and there isn't, so that mention should be removed (as should a few others). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Strong) delete. Not mentioned in the target 2405:9800:BA31:F6:B992:CC83:C858:E57B (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per User:192. Jay (Talk) 20:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:14, 22 September 2021 (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.

Loud Minds

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. ✗plicit 13:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search did not turn up any relevant results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No one single entity seems to be known as "Loud Minds" that's notable. I agree. Let's be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a rumored name for one of the 2 groups formed by Loud. Groups formed by survival shows whose names have been confirmed may be deemed acceptable if they meet our notability criteria. This is not the time to create an article about one of the 2 groups formed by the survival show until they announce their debut and are deemed notable on Wikipedia. A2013a (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_22&oldid=1048133416"