Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Thames whale

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 of the debate was speedy keep. ➥the Epopt 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] River Thames Whale

Nice article, but unverifiable. I'm special 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well so far it's only been what I have been able to say, with other edits I was expected more verifiable info to come forward. But I will add links with info to it. Jamandell (d69) 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This debate was apparently not linked from anywhere, so I've added the template to the article and listed it to today's AfD listing. See below for my vote. Thryduulf 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep, the article is now substantial and well referenced and entirely verifiable. Thryduulf 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep are you kidding me? unverifiable? i saw this in the newspaper this morning. WriterFromAfar755 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable event - astonishing that this was anything other than a 'drop the dead donkey' story but there are many column inches in the UK press on this subject.  (aeropagitica)  22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, obviously. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep External links establishes that this has been covered by many good sources so I don't get the unverifiable claim... could be referenced better perhaps but that's not a reason for deletion. --W.marsh 22:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Now speedy kept by The Epopt. Could an admin close this entry, please? Tonywalton  | Talk 23:01, 23 January 2006 (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.