Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Brownstone (short play)


 * 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 Seung-Hui Cho. have redirected - merge as appropriate Spartaz Humbug! 03:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Brownstone (short play)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Absolutely no notability outside of its authorship by Seung-Hui Cho. Delete. Nlu (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating for deletion (for the same reason):
 * Cho-writings. (For that discussion, see Templates_for_discussion.)
 * Keep: Both writings were examined by Stephen King, and these short plays including a short fiction paper that might has offered an idea of Seung-Hui Cho's troubled life, I just thought that this should be left here. SixthAtom (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Both writings were examined by Stephen King, and these short plays including a short fiction paper that might has offered an idea of Seung-Hui Cho's troubled life, I just thought that this should be left here. SixthAtom (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable as works of literature, and their notability is not inherited from their author. I would suggest a merge, but there's no content worth merging. Robofish (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to Seung-Hui Cho and Seung-Hui Cho, and merge the well-sourced "Reaction" section of Richard McBeef to the main article, after the paragraph on the plot. The plays may not be sufficiently important for standalone articles (they don't say much more than is already in Seung-Hui Cho), but I agree with SixthAtom that at least very close to the borderline in terms of coverage and importance, and there's definitely no reason to lose the content and create redlinks.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.