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 Remote administration software#RAT trojan horses. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Remote Access Trojans (RATs) → Malware  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think we can redirect this to a more specific page, like Trojan horse (computing). Mr. Guye (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, better to have a more specific target. This is Paul (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to section Remote administration software#RAT trojan horses. That being said the title is odd in being in the plural and unnecesarily (DABbed). I would not have created this one myself, but since it exists, any argument for outright deletion is weaker. I note we have Remote Access Trojan → Trojan horse (computing) which I'll list separately for retarget, with the same rationale (but not Remote Access Trojans. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to section Remote administration software#RAT trojan horses per SimonTrew's suggestion. Seems more relevant to the title of the redirect. Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to section Remote administration software#RAT trojan horses per SiTrew. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 1 June 2015 (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 and refine to #Grayware. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unwanted software → Malware  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unwanted software is not inherently malicious. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless a more suitable target can be found. Unwanted software can be a broad definition of just about anything that somebody doesn't happen to want installed on their computer, such as an add on that comes with a software update, but would by no means be classed as malware. This is Paul (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete REDLINK, we should have an article on this topic, really. - TheChampionMan1234 23:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage article creation. The real term seems to be PUP (potentially unwanted program). It is related to spyware and computer viruses but not necessarily one of them. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget, we have Potentially Unwanted Program → Malware#Grayware (and is listed at the DAB at PUP and marked as {{R to section}}). Perhaps we should retarget this to the specific section, likewise? Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Si Trew: Agree that is probably a better option. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Malware#Grayware per SiTrew. Nice catch. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Malware#Grayware per SiTrew. Seems reasonable enough. Dimadick (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2015 (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. Deryck C. 08:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 圣彼埃尔.德.克拉日 → Saint-Pierre-de-Clages  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. Not related to Chinese. Gorobay (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed, no reason to carry a redirect from the Chinese transcription of this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete French-speaking Switzerland has no particular affinity for Chinese -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Deéete. WP:RFOREIGN. Si Trew (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this is as an alias of the village, it is an unsourced one. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a French name, and redirects aren't usually created unless there's a connection between the language and the target. And the village is located in Switzerland, so there is no connection between it and Chinese. SONIC678 (Let’s hang out) 21:13, 1 June 2015 (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. Just Chilling (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Florida Federation Of Black Republicans → Republican Party of Florida  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target article. This was created as a promotional article by a local school board candidate, who also created an article on herself, back in 2006. BDD (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia does not have a relevant article and google offers few results. If this group exists, it is probably non-notable. Dimadick (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2015 (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 retarget to Air traffic control. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Air traffic → Air Traffic  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Could refer to air traffic control, I don't think that the current target is a common usage. - TheChampionMan1234 12:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never heard of this particular Brit band, but I do know that I've sometimes just typed "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_article" and found that it was actually listed at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Article". I've created a few redirects that way. Perhaps the creator of this redirect did the same? Modified a good URL to a bad one, and created the redirect so that the previously bad URL now works? In any case, I'd want to either make "Air traffic" a disamb (which seems ridiculous) or put a hatnote on the "Air Traffic" article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to aviation, since that is air traffic. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. unless Air Traffic is moved to Air Traffic (band) (but that may require a WP:RM discussion.) The WP:DIFFCAPS argument/difference is not strong with these two. The better option may be to add an applicable hatnote to Air Traffic. All examples presented thus far are possible examples that seem to not be specifically referred to by this term. On the same token, weak disambiguate due to what I just stated. Steel1943 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Air traffic control and add a hatnote for the band. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Air traffic control and hatnote, per User:Largoplazo. WP:RFD#D2 confusion (not suggesting a delete but we don't have a section in the RfD guidance on "when to retarget" so thinking of a retarget as a deletion followed by a creation for the purpose of which rationale it comes under). I think "Aviation" is too general. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Air traffic control and hatnote, per User:Largoplazo. The band is not that widely known. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2015 (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. Deryck C. 08:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Flag of the Europe → Flag of Europe  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_22#National_Anthem_of_the_Pakistan - TheChampionMan1234 02:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see much harm being done by having this redirect exist. Why can't it be an {{R from erroneous name}}? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "the Europe" is not commonly used. Unclear use in a redirect. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2015 (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. Deryck C. 08:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KE923 → Korean Air  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-notable flight that is not mentioned in target - TheChampionMan1234 02:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN flight -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This appears to be served also under flight number KAL923 (not sure exactly as code sharing or just different in different markets/alphabets), but that is red, as you see. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The two letter code is the IATA code and the three letter one the ICAO code for the same airline, although not all have both. - TheChampionMan1234 23:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe that, but the pages I were looking at implied it was used as a traveller-facing code, which ICAO codes usually aren't (are they?) Si Trew (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability. Who will ever search for this term? Dimadick (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Searching around, we don't seem to name articles (and, by implication, redirects) by the airline code + flight number, but spell the airline name in full. I searched WP:MOS for "flight code" and "flight number", and WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide similarly, but there seems no guidance on this, but some famous examples (such as BA001 or BA 001 for one of the scheduled Concorde flights) one would expect to have, if we had anything. (We don't have British Airways Flight 1, for that matter.) Notable flights are usually "<full name of airline> Flight <Flight number>", so we have e.g. Korean Air Flight 85 but not KE85 nor KE 85, so this presumably would be Korean Air Flight 923, were it notable enough to exist. So, I'd add WP:RFD#D2 confusing to my reasons to delete (which was essentially WP:RFD#D10, if notability could be established). Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2015 (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. Deryck C. 08:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Das Persien → Iran  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unrelated language, and not in common usage, anyway. - TheChampionMan1234 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete langauge unrelated to target, little affinity for German in Persia -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:RFOREIGN. Si Trew (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also WP:DEFINITE, even if the definite article is in German. The German article for Iran is, er, de:Iran: For Persian, it's just de:Persien, not Das Persien - and it's a DAB over at DE:WP. WP:NOUN as well (it's an adjective, I'm pretty sure). Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We also have The Persian, a character from Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera, but I can't find an equivalent in German WP (it's not at the DAB I mentioned). That being said, German definite articles don't follow English language rules. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This could also link to another article: Symphonische Dichtungen aus Persien (Symphonic Poems from Persia), a 1980 recording of Persian music. Dimadick (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2015 (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. Deryck C. 08:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Telephone: Alexander Graham Bell → Telephone  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No plausible target can be found, and pretty implausible search term. - TheChampionMan1234 02:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we seem to be missing an article dedicated to the device invented by Bell himself (the information being spread amongst a multitude of articles), but we do have Bell Telephone Memorial -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague and inaccurate. Seems that there are several titles of books that contain phrases similar to this one, but never exactly this one. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with User:Steel1943, WP:DEFINITE "Avoid definite and indefinite articles", WP:CONCISE. "Alexander Graham Bell" adds nothing to this since it's not an {{R to section}} or anything; WP:DIFFPUNCT. The Telephone is an article about a comic opera; The telephone is red. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vague meaning and unclear use. Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2015 (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. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Emirados Arabes Unidos → United Arab Emirates  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Emirados Árabes Unidos → United Arab Emirates  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Emirats arabes unis → United Arab Emirates  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Émirats arabes unis → United Arab Emirates  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unrelated to these languages. - TheChampionMan1234 00:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Arabic speaking Arab countries with little affinity for romance languages; its colonial master was the UK not France; and was never dominated by Spain or Portugal, since it didn't exist in that era -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously directs readers to what they're looking for. The nomination statement says nothing about why we might want to delete these redirects, which is confusing. With no arguments for presented for deletion, it's hard to weigh the idea seriously. WilyD 09:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:RFOREIGN, in lede, "foreign-language redirects to a topic not related to that language generally should not be kept". WP:RFD#D5, "makes no sense". Si Trew (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the meantime, without prejudice, I have marked them as {{R from other language|pl}} (or es), and removed the {{R from title without diacritics}} tags since that is only applicable when the Rs are substantially the same as the target, which these are not. Si Trew (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was wrong to mark the last two as Spanish when they are French (Spanish would be Emiratos Árabes Unidos or, without the diacritical mark, Emiratos Arabes Unidos). Not sure what I was thinking, there. Fixed. Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Tavix | Talk  18:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The term "Emirados Árabes Unidos" is used in the article 2016 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations as part of a list of Brazilian Portuguese aliases for countries. And also in List of country names in various languages (Q–Z). Perhaps the redirects should target one of these articles? Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would cause WP:RFD#D2 confusion. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (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.