Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost boat investigation

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. ✗plicit 11:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost boat investigation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

source reliability, outdated information, tone/style issues, duplication Lea 4545 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Source reliability isn't a reason for deletion as long as there are reliable sources, which there seems to be. The bad sources can simply be replaced and removed

- not a reason for deletion

All of these are fixable and it isn't TNT level bad. Keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Sources already in the article are sufficient to satisfy GNG. Furthermore, as PARAKANYAA notes nom has failed to adduce *any* valid criteria for deletion. Central and Adams (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Transportation, Africa, Libya, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. S5A-0043^Talk 03:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good references. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is sufficient. AfD is not cleanup. AusLondonder (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2024 (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.