Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 26, 2022.

"beIN Sports Xtra"[edit]

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 01:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redirect has quote marks and is very unlikely to be used. Found too late to take care of with an GR3. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you mean R3? Either way Delete. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:51, 27 May 2022 (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.

MAGA[edit]

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 Make America Great Again. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be retargeted to Make America Great Again, but wanted to first open a discussion. About ninety percent of outgoing page views from Maga are going to the Trump campaign slogan according to WikiNav. Schierbecker (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make America Great Again might be the primary meaning of Maga as well. Schierbecker (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Make America Great Again as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and add hatnote to Maga there. Unquestionably the primary topic for the acronym, surprised it was retargeted to the dab page and left there since 2016 to be honest. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Make America Great Again as the clear primary topic. Make Maga a primary redirect there too, moving away the disambiguation page. I am far from a MAGA supporter but I cannot deny it is far and away the most primary by views and nothing else would have clear longterm signifiance priority. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maga is a dab page, so that would require moving the dab page out of the way to Maga (disambiguation), which I think should be decided in a separate RM discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2022 (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.

World's Most Wanted[edit]

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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague to be a viable redirect to a comic page. Should likely be deleted as misleading? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:33, 26 May 2022 (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.

English Clasico[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#English Clasico

Surf beach[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Surf beach

Kalimna[edit]

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only a passing mention at the current target as they are not the same town. I don't know that the town is notable (and so would benefit per WP:RFD#D10), but there are many other things mentioned in other articles called "Kalimna", such as the full name of Zonocypretta, and a Penfolds vineyard. I think best to delete to allow uninhibited search. A7V2 (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2022 (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.

Ukrainian Genocide[edit]

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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukraine genocide (2nd nomination) closed with a solid delete consensus and then QueenofBithynia mentioned these redirects on my talk. I took care of the fairly new one, but this one is longstanding and thought it merited discussion so bringing it here. Star Mississippi 13:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC) ETA: I suppose I should explicitly say I'm neutral in this in case merited discussion isn't clear. I'm fine with however this closes. Star Mississippi 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The second redirect, Ukrainian genocide, should not have been deleted without discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored, courtesy heads up @QueenofBithynia. Thought that one was less controversial since it was so recently created but happy to have it discussed as well. I cannot figure out how to edit the discussion to officially add it. Please do if you know how? Star Mississippi 23:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Use {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=|target=}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! And for the page edits. Star Mississippi 13:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that this longstanding redirect is reasonable. The issue that got the one page deleted was being total WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and lacking notability—the focus of the article's content was on more or less the union of Holodomor and War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which isn't exactly a coherent thing that reliable sources are covering. A similar argument cannot possibly apply to a redirect; there are plenty of sources that refer to the Holodomor as a genocide of Ukrainians, so there's an affirmative reason to keep this page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As an addendum to the above, the "thing" in "isn't exactly a coherent thing" is the union of the two topics. A dab page like that proposed below is probably fine (see: WP:Articles for deletion/Ukraine genocide, which resulted in keeping a similar dab page). — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate  The 2022 crimes are a subject that reliable sources are covering and are the subject of Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, “coherence” notwithstanding. —Michael Z. 16:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now this should simply be a short "may refer to" page that links to the Holodomor, Holodomor genocide question, and the page about possible genocide in the ongoing war. JJARichardson (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft DAB is needed for closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate as the genocide label is now frequently applied in reference to the war crimes in the ongoing Russian Invasion of Ukraine, and to allegations of genocidal intent in these crimes. Perhaps when the current conflict is resolved, assuming that there is broad consensus that Russia did not commit genocidal violence during the invasion, this can be turned back into a redirect to the Holodomor. But for now, it absolutely needs to be a disaumbiguation page to distinguish the Holodomor from 2022 Genocide allegations. Thereppy (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2022 (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.

One-Eyed Jack (murder victim)[edit]

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. Jay (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because the relevant content was removed from the target article per the policy of no original research. There is no indication that the subject is of encyclopedic notability (zero independent secondary sources) and that it should have an entry in that list or that a redirect is necessary. 4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, redirect was not tagged. I have done so now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: After only two or three minutes of browsing, it's plainly obvious the nominator is engaging in extensive content warring at List of unidentified murder victims in the United States, including accusations of OR and threats to involve ANI at every possible turn. Here is the source backing the content removed by the nominator. This is another example of Wikipedia as a haphazard collision of competing agendas. In what alternate universe does something published by the United States Department of Justice not constitute a reliable source? The only possible OR here is the name "One-Eyed Jack", something which hasn't been established through such reckless, indiscriminate deletionism. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite concerns raised by RadioKAOS above, if there isn't a source establishing that there was a victim known at One-Eyed Jack, this redirect is not appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to allow closing the May 12th log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 26 May 2022 (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.

DNA experiments[edit]

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. There's general agreement that the current targets are not ideal. Two other, reasonable targets were suggested but neither has consensus that it's unambiguously the correct one. The argument made by the later participants in favour of deletion - that this title is simply too broad to have a correct target - ultimately ends up being supported by the lack of consensus for an alternative, and the conclusion that these fall on the side of being unhelpful redirects. ~ mazca talk 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current target of this redirect is rather surprising/astonishing since it's not about the actually subject of "DNA experiments", leads to a subject named "DNA experiment", or a list of experiments using DNA. I would have to believe there's a better target, but I'm not sure what. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination updated with text in italics. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: For reference, a search for the term "DNA experiment" (DNA experiment doesn't exist) returns several examples of experiments that utilize DNA. In regards to an actual retargeting option for this redirect, what seems to be the best option I found is List of experiments#Biology, but even that does't seem to be good enough since the section includes several experiments not directly related to DNA. Possibly deletion would be the better option here so the search results are not hidden by an existing redirect forwarding readers to a specific page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Information posted by redirect creator. (Collapsed for simpler discussion reading, and to clarify that this was all one comment.)
Reply
The DNA experiment in The Double Helix is the crucial experiment in a series of empirical investigations beginning with Gregor Mendel. As late as 1952 the fact that DNA is the genetic material was disputed. But a critical mass of results as noted below reframed the role of DNA. The DNA experiment redirects, in this case to Scientific method, as one more piece in a larger structure. Just as "Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks: but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house” (Henri Poincaré)", it is the insight from the Scientific method that gives experiment its significance. I paraphrase from the Scientific method (Question, Hypotheses, Prediction, Experiment, Analysis) article:
  • Question "Previous investigation of DNA had determined its chemical composition (the four nucleotides), the structure of each individual nucleotide, and other properties. DNA had been identified as the carrier of genetic information by the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment in 1944,[1][a] but the mechanism of how genetic information was stored in DNA was unclear."
  • Hypotheses "Linus Pauling, Francis Crick and James D. Watson hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure."
  • Prediction "If DNA had a helical structure, its X-ray diffraction pattern would be X-shaped.[2][3] This prediction was determined using the mathematics of the helix transform, which had been derived by Cochran, Crick, and Vand[4] (and independently by Stokes). This prediction was a mathematical construct, completely independent from the biological problem at hand."
  • Experiment Rosalind Franklin used pure DNA to perform X-ray diffraction to produce photo 51. The results showed an X-shape.
  • Analysis When Watson saw the detailed diffraction pattern, he immediately recognized it as a helix.[5][6][b] He and Crick then produced their model, using this information along with the previously known information about DNA's composition, especially Chargaff's rules of base pairing.[7]
The discovery became the starting point for many further studies involving the genetic material, such as the field of molecular genetics, and it was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962. Each step of the example is examined in more detail later in the article.
In other words, the experiment becomes more than data, but reveals the significance of a finding through analysis. It's the crux of the Scientific method. (In this case, it was James Watson who realized the importance of the finding — see Footnote 6: his jaw dropped,and his pulse began to race.)
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McCarty 1985, p. 252.
  2. ^ McElheny 2004, p. 43: June 1952 — Watson had succeeded in getting X-ray pictures of TMV showing a diffraction pattern consistent with the transform of a helix.
  3. ^ Judson 1979, pp. 137–138: "Watson did enough work on Tobacco mosaic virus to produce the diffraction pattern for a helix, per Crick's work on the transform of a helix."
  4. ^ Cochran W, Crick FHC and Vand V. (1952) "The Structure of Synthetic Polypeptides. I. The Transform of Atoms on a Helix", Acta Crystallogr., 5, 581–586.
  5. ^ McElheny 2004, p. 52: Friday, January 30, 1953. Tea time — Franklin confronts Watson and his paper – "Of course it [Pauling's pre-print] is wrong. DNA is not a helix." However, Watson then visits Wilkins' office, sees photo 51, and immediately recognizes the diffraction pattern of a helical structure. But additional questions remained, requiring additional iterations of their research. For example, the number of strands in the backbone of the helix (Crick suspected 2 strands, but cautioned Watson to examine that more critically), the location of the base pairs (inside the backbone or outside the backbone), etc. One key point was that they realized that the quickest way to reach a result was not to continue a mathematical analysis, but to build a physical model. Later that evening — Watson urges Wilkins to begin model-building immediately. But Wilkins agrees to do so only after Franklin's departure.
  6. ^ Watson 1968, p. 167: "The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race." Page 168 shows the X-shaped pattern of the B-form of DNA, clearly indicating crucial details of its helical structure to Watson and Crick.
  7. ^ McElheny 2004, pp. 57–59: Saturday, February 28, 1953 — Watson found the base-pairing mechanism which explained Chargaff's rules using his cardboard models.
Notes
  1. ^ The Nobel committee, in retrospect, expressed regret that Avery had not been awarded the Nobel Prize.
  2. ^ In the Scientific method, questions are raised, and settled. The questions have explanations which are settled by empirical evidence, such as experiment. DNA experiment is thus only part of the picture. Watson and Crick have found the secret of life.
Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to add DNA experiment to this discussion. It was created during the course of this discussion and I would think it should have the same home as the plural form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants have yet to decide which target is best. Is it Genetic engineering or History of molecular biology?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget - I would also take this to 'history of molecular biology' given that scientific research on the practical side into DNA has preceded what we tend to think of as specific 'genetic eingeering'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. "DNA experiment" is simply too ambiguous to be a good redirect. It could refer to many different types of methodologies/techniques as well as numerous historically important results. Disambiguation doesn't make sense because "DNA experiment" isn't really a specific term that could refer to multiple specific things, instead it is a plausible search term, and we should let the search function do its job, as a disambiguation page could never be exhaustive. That said, since the discussion is trending toward retargeting somewhere, History of molecular biology seems like a superior target to Genetic engineering, as genetic engineering is much too specific (lots of scientific work, past and present, that could be described as a "DNA experiment" is outside the context of genetic engineering). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DNA experiment which was created as part of this discussion to aid as a disambiguation page, but which wound up as redirect to another target (a new unreferenced section). Delete DNA experiments as a term that can potentially target multiple targets. Both Genetic engineering and History of molecular biology are too broad. If retargeting, I would have preferred refining to Genetic engineering#Research. Jay (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mdewman6. Either of the proposed targets would be forcing this very general search term to a specific narrower term, which risks obscuring material relevant to a reader's query. Search results are rarely ideal, but in cases like these, it's better to be broad. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2022 (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.

Duck Ponds[edit]

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 disambiguate. Retargeted to the newly created Duck pond (disambiguation). Jay (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has targeted the Lara article since 2005 as it is, according to the article, a former name for the area. However I really don't think this is the primary topic. I'm not sure what is the primary topic (if there is one) however. Presumably it would be either Duck Ponds, South Australia or simply Duck pond. There's a general lack of disambiguation in the "duck pond" area anyway however, so it might be good to have a disambiguation page which could include the plural also, including other terms such as Duck Pond (Judges Guild), Ducky Pond, Duck Pond Run and Duck Pond mine but again I'm not sure. Also note Duck ponds doesn't exist. A7V2 (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have assembled links here. Of the pages you mentioned only 2 are explicitly plural. If i had to !not-vote, I'd say make a dab (or just move mine I don't mind) and point duck ponds at it, or make two and split the singular and plural, I really don't know. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think unless someone has a strong opinion on a primary topic for Duck Ponds, we should retarget to Duck pond (disambiguation) (which I will shortly move your draft to since it can at the very least be hatted from Duck pond). I don't think it's worth having a dab for just two entries. A7V2 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that @A7V2: has moved my dab to mainspace, I agree with the other two and say Retarget to the new dab, as well as create the lowercase you redlinked. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - There are plenty of ponds in the world known as the "Duck Pond". I agree with the above arguments. We should go to a disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2022 (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.

Hölder conjugates[edit]

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 Conjugate index. signed, Rosguill talk 21:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conjugate index seems to be a more specific. Alternatively, that page could be merged to this redirect's current target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2022 (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.

Functional analyst[edit]

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 Functional analysis. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) | never forget 15:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, and might as well refer to a practitioner of functional analysis. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Definitely a business term. maybe a hatnote? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:36, 27 May 2022 (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.

Extreme porn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Extreme porn

Extreme cold[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Extreme cold

Extreme heat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Extreme heat

Betting odds[edit]

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 Odds#Gambling usage. signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Fixed-odds betting or perhaps Odds#Gambling usage with a hatnote to the former. The term generally implies odds within the context of gambling. Bonoahx (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refine Odds w/ hat per above cmts. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC) 15:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IAmChaos: the target is Odds already. Are you referring to the refining? Jay (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I meant. I probably wasn't clear I believe I was thinking about the hatnote while I was writing. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 15:27, 2 June 2022 (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.

Tiquan Forbes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Tiquan Forbes

File:Navagraham title card.jpg[edit]

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. Jay (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am confident this passes WP:G7 since I am the sole creator, to avoid trouble with disagreers, it is best to open a consensus. Moreover, this isn't a title card anymore. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:30, 27 May 2022 (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.

Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals[edit]

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 restore article without prejudice to AfD. Note that an RfD discussion is not necessary or particularly helpful in such a situation. signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deleting the redirect and returning the article content to the page. All other sub-cabinet officials in this department have an officeholder page (as do most other executive departments). A discussion exists on the Talk:Board of Veterans' Appeals talk page. Respectfully yours, KevCor360 (lets talk) 00:33, 26 May 2022 (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/2022_May_26&oldid=1125576607"