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 12:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neo-Bolshevism → Nineteen Eighty-Four  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure where this should go, but it doesn't seem like 1984 is the main usage of this term. (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. HighInBC ^{Need 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. HighInBC ^{Need 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, Rosguill ^talk 06:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not a real "Orwellian" term. Carrite (talk) 10:36, 3 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.

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 07:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Twinkle Khanna Filmography → Twinkle Khanna#Filmography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely "alternative case" redirect. Doesn't help navigation as this type of title would not be expected to be in title case. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]
• Keep, alternative case redirects are generally harmless, this isn't ambiguous, and it may on occassion prove useful. Hog Farm _Talk 05:25, 3 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.

The result of the discussion was moot. The page being discussed is no longer a redirect. A histmerge is pending to resolve the C&P move issue. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wolf Burchard → Metropolitan Museum of Art  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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, Rosguill ^talk 15:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ceoil (talk) 18:49, 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]
• Delete. Enwiki has no substantive detail about the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Draft:Wolf Burchard. I believe he meets the GNG and may also pass NACADEMIC due to citations of his publications. Star Mississippi 19:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The redirect has been replaced with an article, so this can now be closed as moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we were waiting for the end of the RfD? Rosguill or closing admin, mind performing the history merge? It was a cut and paste move by an inexperienced editor. Star Mississippi 13:43, 9 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 05:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Hwang Hyunjin (singer, born 2000) → Hyun-jin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally a redirect created as the result of a page move from this title to Draft:Hwang Hyun-jin, which has now been deleted as an abandoned draft. The mainspace page Hwang Hyun-jin redirects to Stray Kids, the boy group he is a member of. This should not point to the ambiguous Hyun-jin and is best deleted. ✗plicit 01:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cross-namespace redirect that absolutely no one will ever use and serves no purpose. Mlb96 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Security breach → Security  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Topic not discussed in target. Aasim (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a plausible search term. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 07:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am torn for a Retarget between Security hacker and< Data breach. Jay ^(Talk) 05:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to data breach. The primary target is computer / information / data / cyber related. In the absence of any article or coverage in non-computer articles, including the current target, it is not useful to keep it targeted to the broad article. Even Security controls is more specific than current. Similar redirects are Security hole to Vulnerability (computing), Security exploit to Exploit (computer security). Jay ^(Talk) 14:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Farm _Talk 16:12, 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]

• Comment: Agree that redirecting to data breach isn't good, since the term could refer to non-computer security. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:10, 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.