Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Chase

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. Also a reminder that AfD is for deletion only, and noms that propose non-deletion actions (e.g., redirect) are eligible for speedy keep #1. Redirects can be suggested from the article talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Chase[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pseudonym. Update at 22:38 Not much has been written or documented about it, and it was only used for two novels. Should redirect to List of pen names. Beerest355 Talk 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is a pseudonym used collectively by two notable authors who have separate articles, it's a valid search term but there is no one single redirect target. So simply calling the pseudonym itself "non-notable" is not a very useful or complete way to decide what to do here. postdlf (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. I've added some more info that I neglected to write before. Beerest355 Talk 22:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 19:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there was a way to make it redirect to both authors ... but there's not; this is the way we can do that. htom (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been thinking a lot about this one, because it is such an unusual case. I considered a dab to both authors, or deletion, but it seems that the way it is is by far the least confusing and most helpful for the user. Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (to make it clear) per my comments and per other keeps above. postdlf (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is quite an unusual case. I think it is the best solution to keep the page. Any other solution would either duplicate information, or be unnecessarily unhelpful to the reader. scope_creep (talk) 22:26, 11 July 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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.