Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghosts of Gettysburg

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of Gettysburg

Article is just a short summary of the book of the same name. Creator removed the prod tag left by another editor, so I'm bringing it to AFD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It will need developing but a Google Search brings up results that may suggest notability.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds evidence of reviews or other articles about this book. I see a lot of press junket type mentions, but no serious coverage of the book, in doing some news archive searches. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. --Chiliad22 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article, in its current state, is a mess. But the Mark Nesbitt book is highly notable and that can easily be confirmed via Google searches. The subject of ghostly apparitions at Gettysburg can also be documented. This needs a major clean-up, but not deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last input here, I have completely rewritten the article to meet Wikipedia's editorial standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The re-write has made it into a perfectly acceptable stub. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the pastor did good work. I believe in the work's notability. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rewrite seems to have rescued the article to the extent that, in my opinion at least, it is acceptable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is well-sourced and evidently notable as it spearheaded the franchise. Them From Space 22:34, 19 June 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.