Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost sign

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. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost sign

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

After pruning blog refs from this article, I notice that the other refs are personal websites, a Waymarking photo gallery, and one useful source.The article is full of original research and a good faith search for sources turned up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since there are multiple books about ghost signs: [1], [2], plus lots of good results available at Google News: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is a valid subject and the abundance of sources as noted by previous editor—Chris!_c/t 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo. Oreo Priest ^talk 04:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the article's originator, this naturally would be my inclination, but here's why: This is a known historic term for ads that have been preserved on brick and when attention is drawn to them the topic sometimes does come up. It is an occurrence that may be more American than anything, though. I am not sure. I will acknowledge that some of the sources or statements may be original research, but on the other hand there are news articles I've found as well that were added as refs. It would be a boon if there are any books that can add authoritative sourcing to the article. I do not see why the article topic itself should be deleted, though. If we prune back there still are sources out there that can be used; it just would be a very short article. I appreciate being notified of its AFD status by TenPoundHammer, but disagree that the article needs deletion. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2009 (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.