Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.H. Stavis

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 redirect to Demons of Mercy. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.H. Stavis

Non-notable author. Article was previously pretty much a promo piece, and efforts to remove the "spin" removed any assertion of notability, which is to say this author probably wasn't notable in the first place. A fair number of Google hits, but her website, this article and comic book database listings are the main ones. Fails WP:N. (Contested prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to the article's what links here page, the game Demons of Mercy, the miniseries of which is to be created by R.H. Stavis. Whilst it's possible she fails Notability Policy, it seems likely that it's useful for the article to remain, to be expanded upon when the game (and miniseries) launch. - RD ^(Talk) 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demons of Mercy until such time the game is released and more info about the author is available. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demons of Mercy. The author doesn't meet requirements of WP:CREATIVE for a standalone article, though would be appropriately mentioned as the author of the comicbook associated with the game. SilkTork *^YES! 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mgm - there's a degree of notability here, but at the moment there seems to be very little verifiable information other than the fact that this person wrote the series. Until there is, there's nothing much to say here and readers would be better served by reading the series' article. ~ mazca ^t|c 01:43, 2 November 2008 (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.