- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Orwellian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The word may be notable, but the article does not merit an article. At current size should just be a redirect, as Kafkaesque is, to a subsection of George Orwell Eddie891 Talk Work 01:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep George Orwell is already huge. Reception of George Orwell is a valid redlink, tho. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge the parent article is already huge, but this could be mentioned under his cultural impact section; also note WP:NOTDICT (the article starts is an adjective. SportingFlyer ( talk) 02:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- Sufficient notability established by the sources provided. From a practical standpoint, it's useful to have a stand-alone article to accept wikilinks, rather than a redirect to section in a long article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Otherwise, the casual reader will need to consult a lengthy essay on George Orwell.-- Davidcpearce ( talk) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- comment There is precedence for similar words (i.e. Kafkaesque) which are certainly notable topics, but just based on length and quality, as well as available to be merged to a subsection. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The international usage of this concept has been noted in reliable sources. The idea that something "is Orwellian" is well defined and goes beyond simply being a dictionary definition. This is quite consistent, there seems to be an article about pretty much every derogatory term with widespread cultural connotations. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 14:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - redirect to George Orwell.-- Smerus ( talk) 14:17, 4 March 2018 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Orwellian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The word may be notable, but the article does not merit an article. At current size should just be a redirect, as Kafkaesque is, to a subsection of George Orwell Eddie891 Talk Work 01:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep George Orwell is already huge. Reception of George Orwell is a valid redlink, tho. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge the parent article is already huge, but this could be mentioned under his cultural impact section; also note WP:NOTDICT (the article starts is an adjective. SportingFlyer ( talk) 02:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- Sufficient notability established by the sources provided. From a practical standpoint, it's useful to have a stand-alone article to accept wikilinks, rather than a redirect to section in a long article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Otherwise, the casual reader will need to consult a lengthy essay on George Orwell.-- Davidcpearce ( talk) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- comment There is precedence for similar words (i.e. Kafkaesque) which are certainly notable topics, but just based on length and quality, as well as available to be merged to a subsection. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The international usage of this concept has been noted in reliable sources. The idea that something "is Orwellian" is well defined and goes beyond simply being a dictionary definition. This is quite consistent, there seems to be an article about pretty much every derogatory term with widespread cultural connotations. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 14:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - redirect to George Orwell.-- Smerus ( talk) 14:17, 4 March 2018 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.