Deletion of Attack on HMS Invincible

Comment: I am reminded of the quote apparently misattributed to :q:Samuel Johnson|Samuel Johnson.  {{tq|Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good.}}  The main part of this article is copied word-for-word from HMS Invincible (R05).  There is no sourced text anywhere else in the article that is not redundant to the copied paragraph.  Which means there's nothing to merge, and we should delete as a |redundant content fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:REDUNDANTFORK)

Comment: I just wanted to make a comment about  and .  requires that sources are reliable and the mere fact that someone has published outrageous claims in a book doesn't mean we have to repeat them.  We are not required to include demonstrable nonsense about this attack when its plainly contradicted by the fact that the ship sailed home unharmed.   requires that the article should be written in an impartial tone that documents and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. An impartial tone doesn't mean we have to give equal weight to  or conspiracy theories, rather an impartial tone explains in context how this claim is contradicted by evidence.  A good example of how to deal with is in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.  I am concerned given the lecture I've just had about  and  that some may not understand that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VERIFIABILITY||WP:TRUTH||WP:VERIFIABILITY||WP:NPOV||WP:FRINGE||WP:VERIFIABILITY||WP:TRUTH)

Comment: WP:HEY.  Article is ''not'' what it was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attack_on_HMS_Invincible&oldid=986579036 when proposed for deletion.  Easily meets .  And while the attack and its result may be disputed Apocrypha, otability not ruth governs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:T)