Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Voyage


 * 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. John254 15:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Voyage

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced article about an unremarkable movie. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article should be kept. Has sufficient notoriety as a regular re-run on the Sci Fi Channel. Homotlfqa83 talk 23:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, as I said on the article's talk page. I believe that the film is as notable as any other made-for-TV movie, and deserves an article as long as it continues to be aired regularly. Certainly, it's not a great movie (and I'm being kind here), but that doesn't mean it's not notable (in my opinion, at least). -Elizabennet | talk 00:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It's a crappy TV movie. I think it deserves a crappy article =D (as in small) --mboverload @  05:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources besides trivial mentions (e.g. inclusion in TV listings, occasional 1-2 sentence reviews), and so as far as I'm concerned it fails WP:N . Scog (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to keep, in light of the sources found by PC78, who was obviously more successful in looking for them than I was. Scog (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Will someone please reformate the article it looks like crapp.  Homotlfqa83 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'm finding some reviews on the movie, but the article as it stands needs a complete rewrite ,and deletion would effectively be the best course of action to accomplish this. Wizardman  16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article creator is now blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, so won't be coming back to improve it (at least not as User:Homotlfqa83). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Film has sources and several reviews (,, , though these may not be professional reviews). Neither the current state of the article nor the status of the article's creator are valid reasons for deletion. PC78 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article now includes inline citations from reliable secondary sources such as The New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Article needs work but cleanup is not a matter for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, The New York Times article is literally a listing of "What's On Tonight" on TV. The other is not accessible but is entitled "TV today". These hardly imply notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep ...poor as the film itself might be... it being regularly re-aired gives it some minor notability. Do agree that the article needs some work, but no point throwing baby out with bathwater. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2008 (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.