Deletion of Stryver

Comment: I try not to wade into the comment section, because I find articles are either rescued by editing and consensus, or they aren't. But reading through the older AFD, I'm struck by how many blocked users asserted  without any real proof (let alone actual improvements), and that only becomes less credible with time
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: or '''redirect'''. There is some content here to  and the topic can be expanded at the main article. Agree that |notability isn't quite there at this point but there is an obvious place to include this
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:N)

Comment: to A Tale of Two Cities. This seems like an improper AfD since a bold redirect is an obvious  here. It would never be outright deleted due to its usefulness as a redirect to the source material
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: There was a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.J. Stryver|discussion already for this, the result was '''Keep''' and this nomination presents no new argument or evidence.   applies, "''It can be Wikipedia:Blocking policy|disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELAFD)