Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammersmith ghosts

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. I withdraw the nomination, with thanks to the Colonel for their good work and to Cullen for their thoughtful response. I do think that the article title should lose the 's' and the article be rewritten to have the other, weak ghosts be removed or relegated to an addendum. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersmith ghosts

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

I don't see how this is a proper standalone topic. Sure, there are reports of ghosts (but not that many) in the area named in the title, but that doesn't make this a subject in its own right. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A region of Greater London has had some reports of "ghosts" over the past two centuries - fewer than the fingers on my left hand. One proved to be a workman dressed in white, another a fellow trying to scare people. Other reports (not surprisingly) were unexplained. Sources are "ghost books". ~~This topic is not encyclopedic, in my humble opinion.~~ Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems quite notable and there does not seem to be a policy forbidding coverage of ghosts in Wikipedia. The similar case of the Cock Lane ghost is a featured article, for example. Warden (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But rename to The Hammersmith Ghost and remove reference to other ghosts.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material and references on the 1803-1804 ghost are sufficient in themselves to justify the article being kept. I sympathise with Pontificalibus about restricting the material to this one ghost and changing the title but I do not think AfD should force that decision. Let those be editorial decisions after discussion at talk. My hunch would be to change the title but allow the other ghosts to scare us briefly in a separate section. Thincat (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 1804 affair, at least, is certainly notable; here's a BBC article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am changing my recommendation because of the references furnished during the course of this debate, especially the BBC article documenting long-term legal significance. I hope that the article will be rewritten accordingly, and perhaps renamed to something like Hammersmith "ghost" killing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 16 September 2011 (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.