This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Sam Sailor redirected Suzanne Elrod to Leonard Cohen, on his sole judgement, with the edit summary "no independent notability".

I asked them to explain their reasoning more fully, on User talk:Sam Sailor.t

Rather than explaining themselves they asserted WP:ATD-R authorized their redirection, without discussion, quoting the passage "any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another article".

However, it seems to me that they overlooked the passage that begins WP:ATD-R

"Sometimes an [[WP:NOT|unsuitable]] article may have a title that would make a useful redirect."

That section authorizes boldly redirecting titles that don't comply with WP:NOT... Well WP:NOT#Encyclopedic content has eleven subsections. Which of those eleven subsections would the Suzanne Elrod article have fallen under? I don't think it fell under any of them, so I do not believe WP:ATD-R applies.

Perhaps now Sam Sailor could make the effort to explain why they do not agree Elrod measures up to our notability criteria, in more detail? Geo Swan ( talk) 13:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply

With pleasure: the sourcing provided does not measure up to GNG/BASIC. And there is little chance it ever will: I recall no coverage outside of her relation to LC and her being AC's mother. Sam Sailor 13:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• You write "the sourcing provided does not measure up to GNG/BASIC. And there is little chance it ever will" and "I recall no coverage outside of her marriage to LC and her being AC's mother."

1. deletion is supposed to be based on the notability of the topic itself, not on the current state of the article. Your comment suggests you are basing your opinion of the current state of the article, and didn't bother doing your own web search. I suggest that is a mistake.
2. You based what was essentially a deletion on your recollection, not on a meaningful web search?
3. You made some assertions, calling on WP:ATD-R. It is unclear whether you continue to stand by your original interpretation. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• An article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, but I think any editor who compares Geo's AFD stats with Sam's AFD stats can determine for themself who is doing their due diligence.

I said it on my talk page, and I repeat it here: an ATD-R solution is not essentially a deletion, that's just a repeated misconception. Deletion requires sysop tools, ATD-R preserves the editing history. To quote from WP:BLAR:

Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been formally deleted.

So, anyone who disagrees with the redirect can restore the article.

Another misconception is that ATD-R is restricted to WP:NOT cases. It is not. Articles are frequently redirected as e.g. categorized {{ R to related topic}}, {{ R from member}}, {{ R from album}}, {{ R from song}}, {{ R from fictional element}}, {{ R from fictional location}} to mention a few, cf. WP:BLAR. This preserves the article history, and the redirect serves as a valid search term that would be acceptable at WP:AFC/R. And it is a wholly uncontroversial situation because anyone can restore the article. Should further clarification be needed, file an RFC at WT:R. Sam Sailor 11:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC) reply