Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 11 November 2008


 * 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. no opinion on final name  MBisanz  talk 13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Action of 11 November 2008

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

Looks like a textbook WP:NOT case. A military skirmish between the Somali pirates and a British navy ship that just happened 3 days ago. No way to predict if the event will have a lasting effect and sustained coverage beyond the brief period after the event itself. If a few months from now there is still coverage of this event, creating an article may be appropriate then. But it is very premature now. Nsk92 (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I would like to declare that I am a relatively heavy editor of this article, so I understand if some people may view my position on whether this article should be deleted as biased. To respond to that, I promise that I will comment regarding this deletion discussion from a neutral standpoint.


 * One of Nsk92's main arguments, is that the article is a "WP:NOT case. WP:NOT states "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article".  I agree with this guideline, but I do not believe it applies to this article, as the article is covering an event which I believe is sufficiently less trivial than "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism".  I believe this because the engagement has been described in the Times of London as "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory."  This quote does suggest the subject of the article is sufficiently non-trivial for it not to be labelled as a WP:NOT article.


 * One of Nsk92's other main arguments, is that the event may not have "sustained coverage beyond the brief period after the event itself". To respond to that, I would like to direct to WP:NTEMP, which states "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic".  Basically, if the article already meets WP:N, which I believe this article does based upon the national newspaper articles cited in the article, evidence of "sustained coverage beyond the brief period after the event itself" is not needed to establish notability.


 * The other main argument, is that the battle may not have a " lasting effect". I do not believe there is a Wikipedia guideline which states that a battle must have a "lasting effect" in order for an article to be written about it.


 * Also, there is an argument that the engagement is not sufficiently significant in of itself to warrant an article. To counter that, the engagement has been described as "the first time since the 1982 Falklands War that the Royal Navy had killed anyone on the high seas", "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory", "signalled a new policy of maximum robustness for the Royal Navy on the high seas" , "believed to be the first time recently that British [naval] service personnel have been involved in a confrontation that resulted in deaths", and the "first time Russian forces have moved against Somali pirates."  I believe these descriptions shows that the engagement is apart from many other anti-piracy engagements around the world, and also that it is sufficiently significant to warrant an article. BlueVine (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I suggest that you formally record your opinion as a "keep" !vote below, for the record (you are perfectly entitled to do that). On the substance, while this event is certainly less trivial than the results a sports match, it is not so obviously significant as to clearly deserve a separate article the moment the event happens. In my experience, WP:NOT has been consistently interpreted and applied as to mean that if an event only receives substantial coverage during a brief period of time surrounding the event itself, it does not merit an article. This does not mean that there has to be significant coverage of equal intensity to the initial coverage 6 months or a year from the event itself (even for significant events the coverage necessarily drops off after a while). But it does mean that months after event there must be some instances of in-depth coverage of it or perhaps some evidence of that event having proved to be influential in some other way (e.g. influencing policy, lawmaking etc). There are exeption to this rule, but they generally concern obviously major events, such as, for example, 2008 South Ossetia war. The subject of the present article appears to be a fairly minor military confrontation between the pirates and a governmental military ship, that are frequently reported on in the news. It does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of an event that is clearly so significant at the time it happened as to require a separate article. It may be that this particular skirmish will prove more consequential for some reason, but that remains to be seen and only time will tell. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   —Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nsk92 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for the ok to post a !vote, but I do not wish to do so. As a heavily involved editor of the article, I feel it would be right of me not to submit a !vote during this discussion.


 * Nsk92, I agree that Wikipedia should not allow articles covering, say, an incident involving a cat up a tree, just because the incident received lots of media coverage, because the incident is fairly trivial. I believe the subject of the article is sufficiently significant, because this engagement is "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory".  I believe that fact establishes the unique concrete significance of the battle.  And the fact that the battle "signalled a new policy of maximum robustness for the Royal Navy on the high seas", also shows that the engagement is apart from "fairly minor military confrontation between the pirates and a governmental military ship, that are frequently reported on in the news" that Nsk92 described.  Also, the Independent, reported that the battle is "believed to be the first time recently that British [naval] service personnel have been involved in a confrontation that resulted in deaths", which I believe adds to the idea that this battle is significant.  Also, Russia Today has reported that the battle is the "first time Russian forces have moved against Somali pirates."  BlueVine (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - minor encounter with no lasting notability. -- Biruitorul Talk 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-If I may ask, why do you think the encounter is minor, when it has been stated that the battle is "believed to be the first time recently that British [naval] service personnel have been involved in a confrontation that resulted in deaths", and "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory"? As for no lasting notability, according to WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary.  Thank you in advance if you respond to my query.BlueVine (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is, admittedly, some tension between WP:NTEMP and WP:NOT. As for your first question: I think we cover the matter sufficiently here; no need for a full article. -- Biruitorul Talk 05:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. Note also that WP:NTEMP is a part of WP:N which is a guideline, while WP:NOT is a part of WP:NOT, which is a policy. In cases of doubt policies overrule guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOT is indeed a policy, as opposed to WP:N. However, Nsk92, you are arguing that WP:NOT is appropriate grounds for the deletion of the article based upon an "interpretation", not upon what WP:NOT definetly says.  WP:NOT says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", and I believe I have shown this article is covering a subject sufficiently more significant than announcements, sports reports e.t.c.  BlueVine (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The lasting notability already exists. Just as the notability of the seizure of British troops by Iran was notable, so is this. This is a dramatic switch, and highly notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- This article is notable because it is the first naval battle fought by british forces since the korean war. The battle is the most lethal one fought against pirates in Operation enduring freedom horn of africa so far. This battle is also notable world wide, citing the example that there is already a Japanese version of this article.  This article has a solid fact basis and is notable so why should it be deleted as opposed to the dozens of articles of minor civil war skirmishes which have been on wikipedia for years.XavierGreen (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling this episode a "naval battale" is rather a stretch. Based on the text of the article itself it looks like a fairly minor skirmish. The crew of pirate dhow resisted, by automatic rifle fire, the attempt by Cumberland to board the dhow. The marines returned fire, killed two of the pirates and took the ship. As the article itself says: The Royal Navy described the boarding itself as "compliant". Sorry, but with all due respect to the British Navy, this was not a "naval battle" in the sense that term is usually used. Regarding the first naval battle for the British fleet in 50 years, whatever happened to the Falklands war? Nsk92 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the Cod War, the RN's role in the 1991 Gulf War (which included sinking much of the Iraqi Navy with attack helicopters) and the RN's role in the 2003 Iraq War (which included mounting an amphibious assault in southern Iraq and providing British forces with gunfire support). Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The cod war is a misnomer there were no casualties. Secondly the only surface action fought in the falklands war was Battle of Seal Cove were extremely few shots were fired and no one died.  This action is indeed the first lethal surface action britian has fought since the korean war. Thirdly the aforementioned Battle of Seal Cove is less notable than this article and yet still remains on wikipedia. XavierGreen (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The information is relevant and appropriate to an article on Operation Enduring Freedom, or Somali piracy, or both. However, the action by itself is a footnote and an instance of news, and unlikely to be encyclopedic in and of itself. Otherwise, a statement that Wikipedia is not news has no meaning. RayAYang (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Piracy in Somalia is a good place to drop this information. RayAYang (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to Piracy in Somalia would be fine by me. Nsk92 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if kept, rename, this is a bad name. Suggest Anglo-Russian anti-piracy battle (11 November 2008) 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the idea for a new name. If the article is kept, the idea should be investigated further, imo.  BlueVine (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but Rename, notable due to secondary media coverage and the fact that this appears to be the first naval battle that the UK has been involved in since the Falklands. The current title is really dreadful though.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC).
 * I am fairly sure that the British Navy participated in the first Gulf war. That aside, this particular skirmish was hardly a "naval battle", it was more akin to police action that entities like the U.S. Coast guard are routinely enaged in when, for example, arresting drug sugglers. Nsk92 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the engagement has been the engagement has been described as "the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory", "signalled a new policy of maximum robustness for the Royal Navy on the high seas", "believed to be the first time recently that British [naval] service personnel have been involved in a confrontation that resulted in deaths", and the "first time Russian forces have moved against Somali pirates", does suggest the engagement on November 11 is sufficiently more significant than a "police action that entities like the U.S. Coast guard are routinely engaged in", so as not to fall under Nsk92's interpretation of WP:NOT. BlueVine (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When I mentioned the police action in my response to Lankiveil's post I was talking about the scope of this military enagement and the fact that calling it a "naval battle" is quite a bit of a stretch. In its scope this skirmish is quite comparable to routine enforcement actions of the U.S. Coast Guard. Things like "signalled a new policy of maximum robustness for the Royal Navy on the high seas" are worth mentioning in a newspaper article but not sufficiently significant to have an encyclopedia article about this incident yet and can be easily mentioned in the Piracy in Somalia article in a single sentence. The most interesting thing here appears to be the fact that the two Somali pirates killed were the first people killed by the British Navy on high seas in a long time (although how long a time it is not clear). This is certainly an interesting tidbit but not such an obviously significant "historical first" as to warrant a separate article now, right after the event has happened. Again, this, for the moment, is perhaps worth a sentence and a footnote in the Royal Navy article, but anything more would be crystalballing for the time being. If 6 months from now this skirmish is still viewed as a significant event, we can have an article about it then. Nsk92 (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into something like Piracy in Somalia per WP:NOT. This topic isn't notable in isolation, and any claims that it is are crystal ball gazing at this stage. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The engagement is "the first time since the 1982 Falklands War that the Royal Navy had killed anyone on the high seas" and the "first time Russian forces have moved against Somali pirates". These claims of notabillity do not appear to be crystal-ball gazing, imo.  BlueVine (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

**Re-direct to Piracy in Somalia. I have become convinced by the argument that the engagement isn't worthy of its own article, and I would like to argue that the Action of 11 November 2008 article should be re-directed to Piracy in Somalia. I believe I have added all the relevant info from the Action article, to the Piracy in Somalia article. BlueVine (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I apologise for making another u-turn. After much consideration, I have again become convinced that the article is covering an event sufficiently significant for it not to be identified as a 'Not News' case.  I know I said earlier that I would not !vote, but I can see the logic in stating my position in a very clear way.BlueVine (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly a notable news event as far as WP milhist and ships are concerned. The article is well sourced and cited. --Brad (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not notability or sourcing, but that, as of the moment, this is, as you put it, just that, a "news event" and thus is not yet deserving a separate article per the WP:NOT policy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia. Nsk92 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment — There are a handful of articles about naval incidents off the Somali coast. These articles are all stubs and really can’t be expanded. I suggest we merge all of the articles into one page, something like “Anti-piracy engagements of the Somali coast”. The information can’t really be merged with the existing “Piracy in Somalia” page, but we can just cut and paste the existing articles into a new one. – Zntrip 20:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. The article name does not clearly identify the subject. It is notable enough to be separate from Piracy in Somalia. McWomble (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in that it is the first time Russian forces have acted agains Somali pirates. Article is well referenced. Agree it needs a better title, but that is not what this debate is about. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Partial merge, perhaps into Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa. I think most editors agree that the content ought to be preserved, but that the title is problematic (hasty historicization, if I may coin the phrase). Therefore rename to follow the convention currently in place: November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia. Albrecht (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have re-named the article "November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia".  May I ask what you mean by "partial merge"?  A merge entails deleting the article, and moving over all of its relevant content to another article.  Therefore, I am afraid I cannot see how a partial merge can be done, unless you mean that you want the article to be kept, and relevant info from the article copied to another article (e.g. Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa) as well.  BlueVine (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right; the phrase was clumsiness on my part. I meant to say that it should be incorporated as a section in an article detailing Somalian piracy (such as Enduring Freedom), which should assuage the concern editors are expressing about a small event having delusions of grandeur&mdash;but, I'm not necessarily of the opinion that it needs to be merged in its entirety, i.e. it can conceivably keep its own entry just like any other subtopic; Jan Smuts in the Boer War, Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939, Battle off Samar, etc. In other words, once that happens, there's no longer any question of "recentism" or "notability;" you're simply preventing the "main article" from getting too long. Albrecht (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * keep+retitle. Has good sources, and serious shoot-outs involving a major navy are rare. I wouldn't merge, as this article should be wiki-linked both by articles on Somali and articles on piracy, which, surprisingly to us cosy "Western" people, is still a significant threat in some areas. Whatever the title convetions are, I suggest the title should include "naval", "Somalia" and "piracy" or "pirates", as these are the likeliest search terms. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (and rename): Well referenced and the article will have the capacity to grow in time as interviews etc become available. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep certainly a notable enough event but in the worst case merge to the Piracy in Somalia area. However, if keep an article name change is much desired. The title is very vague/unclear and may represent multiple other events then this. JForget  22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If the article is kept, I will start a 'New Name' discussion on the article's talk page. BlueVine (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a little more than just a news event. It's likely going to be a case study for many years in military science, especially because this sort of thing seems to be escalating.  A supertanker was just seized by pirates about 500 miles off the coast of Somalia.  Well-sourced, and a bit too large to merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:07, 18 November 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.