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.
Keep I will change my mind if I am corrected. But as far as I can tell Neo-Bolshevism(not to be confused with National Bolshevism) is not a real world ideology, it is a fictional one from the book Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is entirely reasonable that someone searching for it would be referring to the concept in the book.
HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.06:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)reply
It appears the term is in wider use than I originally thought. Based on the information Mathglot has provided I am retracting my !vote.
HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.01:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete checking the
top ten results in books, none of them are about Orwell, or 1984. Checking the next ten, result #20 is about Orwell's 1984. Checking the
top 20 at Scholar, results #9 and #18 are about it.
Mathglot (
talk)
08:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep if none of the neologisms using "Neo-Bolshevism" are notable, its usage in Orwell's
1984 remains the primary topic. If some of them are notable, this should become a DAB.
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
23:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - GScholar results suggest that the term is used in a variety of contexts, including g a) as an epithet for Putin's foreign policy b) as an epithet for late 20th or 21st century politics associated with the Soviet Union c) as an epithet for latter day adherents to the political theories of the Bolshevik faction in the RSDLP or d) as a pejorative term for anything remotely socialist. The term certainly gets used enough to justify the existence of coverage about the term itself, but I didn't come across anything that would establish notability outright. More importantly, it seems that most people using the phrase are not trying to refer to the 1984 ideology. signed, Rosguilltalk06:13, 29 July 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.
Twinkle Khanna Filmography
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.
Strong keep per {{R from move}} - an article at this title was moved to the correctly capitalized spelling before being merged to the current target. This points where it should, and the title has hundreds of hits in the past 30 days, indicating external linking.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts)
18:42, 2 August 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.
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.
Not mentioned at the target, briefly mentioned at
Walter Gropius (a distant relative), but possibly notable, so deletion to encourage article creation seems like the right course of action. signed, Rosguilltalk15:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Do not delete. Wolf Burchard is a Associate Curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art since 2019. There he is responsible for British furniture and decorative works of art.
SDoderer (
talk)
21:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Redirecting a curator to the museum where they work might be helpful if their entire career was highly tied to the museum, and their work is discussed at the target. Neither is the case here. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
06:10, 2 August 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.
Draft:Hwang Hyunjin (singer, born 2000)
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.
Delete. Not sure what happened here; it seems the draft was ultimately moved to
Draft:Hwang Hyun-jin, redirected to
Hyun-jin, reverted, and deleted. In any case, there's the intended target has been deleted and this would have been G8 if not for the bot edit that should have been reverted when the original draft was restored. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
06:10, 2 August 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.
Security breach
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.
Keep strongly related to topic, even without a direct mention. I don't like the idea of retargeting to a computer-security related article, as the term can also refer to breaches of physical security.
Hog FarmTalk16:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep I wouldn't create that redirect myself, but it's not too misleading or implausible and I don't see anything better to retarget it to.
Winston (
talk)
07:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as requested by
Jay on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk!01:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Signs on airport jetways say that going out the doorways onto the ground, without authorization, is a security breach. But going out a doorway without authorization is not a data breach.
192.180.91.15 (
talk)
12:06, 10 August 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.