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 Retargeted to Shadowgate (book) by the nominator. Then, the article Shadowgate (book) was moved over the redirect Shadowgate (novel) via WP:RM/TR Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Shadowgate (novel) → Deltora Quest (series) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This article already exists under the name Shadowgate (book). Why have a misleading redirect when the article exists? Delete, please. Nick1372 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Shadowgate (book). Per the nominator's explanation, the redirect should actually be retargeted, not deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is it a novel, or just a book? If it is a novel, then the article should be moved atop the redirect. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 70.24.250.103, I was wondering the same thing, not being familiar with the subject. The description in the article describes it as a "children's fantasy book" in one place, and a "fantasy novel" in another place. That question would be better answered by someone more familiar with this topic. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have the book in front of me right now, but I'm not sure what exactly separates a novel from a book. Nick1372 (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After checking some details out ... since this is a work of fiction, it would be considered a "novel". Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Then the best course of action would be to import all of Shadowgate (book)'s text into Shadowgate (novel) and then have the former redirect to the latter, right? Nick1372 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly, but you want to move the page rather than copy the content - see Wikipedia:Moving a page. This will require deletion of the current redirect though and so can only be done by an administrator. I don't think it will be contentious, but I suggest starting a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion at talk:Shadowgate (book). If you do then note that here and this discussion can then be closed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To add on to Thryduulf's comment, to close this discussion first prior to starting the move request, I would first recommend carrying out the "Retarget to Shadowgate (book)," then start a separate move request to move Shadowgate (book) over Shadowgate (novel) via the instructions on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that sounds like the best temporary solution. Just one thing, this is my first time using RfD and I'm not quite sure how to close with the Retarget option. I see "keep" and "delete" but no "retarget". Nick1372 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The "keep" option just takes you to the editing window on the redirect page, so choose that, remove the RfD lines and retarget as appropriate, adjust the edit summary and save. Don't forget to put the ((old rfd)) template on the talk page (overwriting any redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, will do. Nick1372 (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's all done. "Shadowgate (book)" has been moved to "Shadowgate (novel)". Nick1372 (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. Both (book) and (novel) should lead to the article as they are both likely search terms for the content, but I have no preference about which is the article and which is the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2013 (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 Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not pie ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:I like pie → Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 26 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete as I really don't think anyone will look for that discussion. Also redirects don't normally go to Reference Desk questions. Or would it be more useful as a redirect to either WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I like it or WP:Wikipedia is not pie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply south (talk • contribs)

• Keep: Seems like a harmless redirect to me and it documents a Wikimedia behavior pattern (i.e., a common form of vandalism). --MZMcBride (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not pie. The target makes more sense then some minor discussion on an archived Reference Desk discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not pie per User:Steel1943 --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:17, 24 April 2013 (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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 桂琳 → Guilin (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

“Guilin” is 桂林, not 桂琳. I can’t find anything that 桂琳 might refer to. Delete. Gorobay (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with delete. I believe that 桂琳 (Guilin) may refer to a Ming dynasty landscape painter. However, I cannot verify this. --Bejnar (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment according to the Wikipedia competitor Baike, [1] it is a Ming Dynasty artist -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and possibly to encourage the creation of the article for the Ming Dynasty artist.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (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 deleted by page creator. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:GTFO → Wikipedia:Leave. Please. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Any hope of the target essay being taken as anything other than an attack is squashed by the experience of passing through this redirect, which makes the intent to offend rather clear. Ori.livneh (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It seems kind of silly to me to delete a redirect that both has a few legitimate uses and has existed for over four years simply because someone thinks there's a possibility of the underlying essay being misinterpreted. Thanks for notifying the page creator of this deletion nomination, Ori. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Query What are the few legitimate uses? I'm not a texter. --Bejnar (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It "has a few... uses" means that people are actively (or were actively) using the redirect. See the link provided. Killiondude (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the most recent preserved usage, other than notice of this discussion, seems to have been 2009. It is not particularly useful and some obviously find it troublesome, so Delete. --Bejnar (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The redirect implies angry obscenities, but the actual page is simply asking people not to stress themselves out. GTFO is not a good way to tell someone to cool off. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:GTHO would be okay, but WP:GTFO is crossing a line!! (WP:HUMOR) But, in all seriousness, Delete per Ego White Tray. Steel1943 (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - suggest changing to WP:GTHO or anything that would not be offensive to anyone reading the essay. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:48, 22 April 2013 (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.