Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 13

July 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 13, 2014.

GNU Linux



 * 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. Though a misnomer, the consensus is that this is a plausible search term for GNU/Linux. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * GNU Linux → Linux (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is a misnomer of GNU/Linux, and Richard Stallman believes that it mistakenly suggests that the Linux kernel itself is a GNU package (see ). Also note, there is Linux-libre, which is GNU package. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 
 * Keep (1) the target is not about the kernel, it is about linux "OS"es in general (2) the distros commonly available are GNU/Linux derivative, and the target article deals with that in general. (3) the common usage in the world at large is the topic of the article Linux. (4) pedantically, "Linux" is just the Linux kernel, but that is not the topic of our article at Linux, which also covers the territory of GNUpackages+Linux. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what "common usage" do you talk about? I've never seen any usage of "GNU Linux", as opposed to "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux". For the same reason I wonder how you determine what the title is about. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "GNU/Linux", "GNU+Linux", "GNU-Linux" and "GNU Linux" should all point to the same place, Linux. "GNU Linux" does appear outside of Wikipedia . On Wikipedia GNU_Linux is the same as GNU Linux, and "GNU_Linux" is used in the world outside Wikipedia . -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see "common usage" but rather several typographical errors, bunch of usernames and partial software titles matchs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:R criteria 2 and 8: causes confusion between GNU/Linux and GNU Linux-libre (on top of general confision between GNU/Linux and Linux kernel), with off-site usage falling under either of erroneous/obscure term or typographical error, as demonstrated in evidence by IP. Disambiguation is ruled out by WP:PTM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If a name being a misnomer was in itself a reason to delete a redirect, then why do we have R from incorrect name? Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I have seen the term many times, but GNU/Linux is more common.  I can also see people typing in GNU Linux without the /.  As Jacmcbarn says, this is why we have R from incorrect name. Bgwhite (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The Linux article says "The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux". That's what people will be looking for.  Linux has been viewed 170443 times in the last 30 days, Linux-libre has been viewed 2933 times in the last 30 days.   D r e a m Focus  11:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Braveheart (Neon Jungle album)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 13

Template:Whom
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 13

Next Slovenian parliamentary election



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It's after 2014 elections. there is no article which describe "next" elections. Aight 2009 (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Next Slovenian parliamentary election → Slovenian parliamentary election, 2014 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * 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.

Nothing sucks like a vax
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 1%23Nothing sucks like a vax

Division of China
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 23%23Division of China

Windows Janus
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 23%23Windows Janus

Luna Element



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Luna Element → Windows XP (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is a third party desktop theme for Windows XP which is not mentioned at the target, and isn't even notable. TheChampionMan1234 06:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:R criterion 2: this redirect is confusing, because it does not explain the subject of this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment "Luna" is a name of the Moon. The element named for the Moon is Selenium, so if this is kept, it should be retargetted to Selenium. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

NotAllMen



 * 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 procedural close, as the redirect has been converted to an article. AfD would be the venue now, though for my money, it would be a waste of time. The subject seems notable. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * NotAllMen → YesAllWomen (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Action: I would like the redirect from NotAllMen to YesAllWomen to be deleted. The reasons for this are as follows: '''10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.'''

I feel that deleting the redirect and having NotAllMen be redlinked would be ideal. Previous discussion on this redirect centred around the presence of NotAllMen in media discussion related to the IslaVista Shootings. The current YesAllWomen page has zero discussion of NotAllMen. Furthermore, NotAllMen could reasonably be expanded into an article in its own right.

(Apologies in advance for errors in protocol.) A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * speedy keep this was just discussed a month ago. The redirect is there b/c it's a reasonable search term and the best Article we have is yesallwomen. And the article does discuss notallmen as the genesis of yesallwomen. I'm not convinced we need a separate Article, but if we do then that's still no reason to delete the redirect in the meantime. In whAt possible way is a red link better than a redirect? It makes zero sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RED: in previous RfD discussion Agyle demonstrated that this topic may indeed be plausibly turned into redirect article . As long as the topic is not covered elsewhere, WP:R criterion 10 indeed applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC) (updated 21:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC))
 * the topic is covered in the article. Additionally, you need to read the 'reasons to not delete', which includes it being a plausible search term and that someone finds it useful - both of which apply here. It has been viewed over 300 times since it was created and is currently used around 8x per day. I'm not sure if a notable article could be created for notallmen (and not convinced we need an article about every hash tag) but a redirect seems within reason --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned, but it is not covered. The mention in the article currently says nothing about this hashtag, and it actually should not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it does discuss the hashtag as the origin of yesallwomen - it is a direct response to notallmen. Until we have a separate notallmen article - and I'm not at all convinced we need one - this redirect is perfectly appropriate and useful to the reader as a plausible search string.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How exactly is it usable? Suppose I read a mention of "NotAllMen" in a local newspaper, in a context that would warrant Wikipedia search instead of going to Twitter directly (eg. "John Doe of 'NotAllMen' said..."). I go to Wikipedia, and following this redirect I get to a page that discusses some completely different hashtag. After some reading I find "NotAllMen" as a mention in the story of origin of "YesAllWomen". What information did Wikipedia give me? Nothing I was looking for. Connotation? Nothing but what I already knew from the "NotAllMen" title alone. Even redirect to hashtag would be more useful – at least it wouldn't waste my time on locating this mention.
 * Now, I don't have a clue about this hashtag. If it is not notable, include it in some stand-alone list of non-notable tags. But keeping this redirect because of its helpfulness is a misconception: it is not helpful at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it's the best target I can think of. If you have a better target propose it. But don't vote to delete the redirect. I find it useful because it brings me to the most complete coverage Wikipedia has on the subject for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is the best target, this redirect should be deleted per WP:RED. If you want to keep mention – make a stub, dump references from previous RfD discussion there and keep it on your watchlist. Eventually it will either grow into an article, get merged somewhere or just outlive the tag and get lost. Currently it is not helpful at all, and it won't magically become helpful one day without someone doing something. The purpose of deletion per WP:RED is to get someone who knows and cares make the job. If you care nearly as much as it seems from your comments – just WP:DIY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Czarkoff, you mean "turned into an article," right? --BDD (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you, I've fixed that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep per the discussion last month. No need for another discussion about it, however it is relevant because YesAllWomen was the counterpart of 'NotAllMen' in that regard. I'll see if I can add some detail about it. Added it to the article.  Tutelary (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This does not qualify for "procedural keep": consensus may change, and that discussion was closed a month ago. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So if I recreate this redirect one month from now (if its deleted) - its okey because consensus may change? Christian75 (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you open discussion about its recreation one month from now (if it is deleted), it will be OK because consensus may change. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"In reaction to the hashtag "#NotAllMen", an anonymous female Twitter user then created "#YesAllWomen", which quickly became used by women throughout social media to share their experiences of sexism and misogyny."
 * Delete Someone has since edited the YesAllWomen page so the article actually contains the words NotAllMen:

The citations used to reference this sentence bolster the need for a red link and redirect removal;
 * Jess Zimmerman (2014-04-28). "Not All Men Meme Rise of Defense Against Sexism Misogyny". TIME. - Points to the existence of the NotAllMen meme prior to Isla Vista. Author describes its existence in 2013
 * Jeff Bridges (2014-06-02). "#NotAllMen Don’t Get It". TIME. - YesAllWomen as a direct response to NotAllMen (Current YesAllWomen has virtually zero mention or discussion of NotAllMen)
 * Plait, Phil (2014-05-27). "Not all men: How discussing women’s issues gets derailed". Slate.com. - NotAllMen as a response to Isla Vista Shootings and how YesAllwomen is a response to that response
 * http://jezebel.com/your-guide-to-not-all-men-the-best-meme-on-the-interne-1573535818 - NotAllMen has "been around for years", source of not all men as being a comic strip, retweets of said not all men comic by notable celebrities,
 * Vendituoli, Monica (2014-05-28). "#NotAllMen, but #YesAllWomen: Campus Tragedy Spurs Debate on Sexual Violence". Chronicle.com. - YesAllwomen respondes to notallmen, campus rape culture discussion
 * Pachal, Pete (26 May 2014). "How the #YesAllWomen Hashtag Began". Mashable. Retrieved 6 June 2014. - "Some men responded to #YesAllWomen with another hashtag, #NotAllMen. The tag has existed for a while..."
 * Valenti, Jessica. "#YesAllWomen reveals the constant barrage of sexism that women face". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 June 2014. - "..."not all men" narrative that preceded Rodger's killing spree..."
 * "#YesAllWomen Puts Spotlight On Misogyny". NPR. 28 May 2014. - Unverifiable

A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * if you want to try to make an article about NotAllMen go ahead, no need to delete the redirect. But, if and when that article is put up for deletion as a silly internet meme, we will just recreate this redirect and point to the same place. So, seems like a shortcut to just keep.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * keep - per user:Obiwankenobi (and last deletion request) - if the redirect was recreated after a rfd, the redirect would not be a new rfd - but a speedy deletion per WP:G4 Christian75 (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * delete - Per nominator. Being briefly mentioned in the article does not warrant a redirect. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - if you think it should have its own article, then write the damn thing. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I made it into an article since Time Magazine did an entire article about it, as have other reliable sources. So no need for a redirect when you have an article.  Waiting for you to leave it as a redirect or an empty spot wouldn't make any difference to whether I could then turn it into an article or not.   D r e a m Focus  15:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Resolution I appreciate the work of Dream Focus and others in creating a NotAllMen article. It is clear that the redirect from NotAllMen to YesAllWomen should be deleted. A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.