Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the AfD began as a discussion of the article under the above title. The article has been moved and the AfD should now be considered to be about:

The article was created about the ship. However, none of the sources are actually about the ship, they are about the incident the people who own/sail the ship were involved in - straying into Indian national waters carrying guns without proper licensing/charges of illicit procurement of fuel etc. As a current event, the " incident" also currently fails WP:NOTNEWS, yes there are a lot of potential things that might happen that might make this more than some news filler, but we dont build articles on things that might happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Note: that the article has been moved back to MV Seaman Guard Ohio. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * keep (and reverse rename).
 * This business of floating armouries as part of the anti-pirate measures is an interesting one and worthy of coverage. We have many article on individual ships and the MV Seaman Guard Ohio has coverage that meets our standards to justify it as a "notable ship". Furthermore, this incident has also novelty and credible newspaper coverage to support it as an article.
 * Whichever of these three directions we took the article in, then there is interest and 3rd party coverage to support an article. Personally I'd tie it to the ship, as a ship, but others might have other opinions. A broad article on the use of floating armouries in these anti-piracy operations would be a good topic, but I suspect rather difficult to source from this secretive area. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * while the subject of floating armouries as part of the anti-pirate measures is interesting we do not create subjects for secretive events for which there is not third party coverage. This particular ship and this particular event have not shown themselves to be WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If only you had the wit to read a comment, rather than spotting the one word in it that blows your particular dog whistle and then completely ignoring the rest of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One feels the need to remind others of WP:NPA. I did in fact read your whole message and responded to the only part that had not already been addressed in the article nomination. Unless you feel the need to also be reminded of WP:OTHERCRAP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * keep (and remove the deletion tag and the notability tag).
 * The incident has received wide coverage in local media and is therefore significant enough to merit a wikipedia page. The issue of the incident also gains significance because it comes on the heels of a chorus of warnings from academia, industry, political and legal experts regarding the loosely regulated industry of PMC (Private Military Companies) and PMSC (Private Maritime Security Companies).
 * After cross-checking with rules as defined on WP:GNG I think that there is a strong case for the removal of the NOTABILITY tag and also the DELETION tag.
 * For info (on 19 Oct 2013), the search term "MV Seaman Guard Ohio" at present has 182,000 results on Google Search and 8,190 results on Google News. The events surrounding "MV Seaman Guard Ohio" have received global coverage and through all major news sources : BBC, VOA, Fox News, Sky News, ABC, France24,... and also press wires like Reuters, AFP, etc.,
 * As for a search on "AdvanFort", the numbers are as follows : 99,500 results for Google Search and 6,720 results for Google News.
 * Given the fact that several media articles   have talked about the persons managing AdvanFort not release us from citing company names and individuals who hold management positions in the firm ?
 * Armed ship in India had prior brushes with law - "The Hindu" newspaper
 * Not first brush with law for ship owner - "The New Indian Express" newspaper
 * Shadowy Arab billionaire behind armed US ship - "The New Indian Express" newspaper
 * Storm clouds gather over detained US ship - "The Telegraph"
 * I've suggested on the article's talk page [] that the text could be divided/distributed over 3 subjects (1) the ship "MV Seaman Guard Ohio", (2) the company "AdvanFort and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdvanFort (2) and (3) the incident "MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident".
 * Any attempt to delete/curtail this article would be unhelpful if done without consensus and prior discussions based on valid reasons. 81.240.147.136 (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * again, simply being in the news does not equate to being encyclopedic and meeting our requirements for an article. WP:NOTNEWS The subject lacks a WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage in that there is no indication that once the result of any charges have been completed anyone anywhere will remember, care, or write about this incident again. (and of course THIS is the forum in which the notability of the subject is determined, and the tags indicating this discussion is ongoing stay on while the discussion is ongoing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, revert move from MV Seaman Guard Ohio to MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident, stub, and create an article on the company, AdvanFort with a section on the incident. The incident has made the company notable, but it's entering crystal ball territory to give the incident an article of its own; time will tell whether it results in any legal or procedural changes or receives continuing news coverage. Right now, however, the news coverage of the incident has provided sufficient RS to source a brief article on the ship, and thereby, like it or not, made it a clear example of any ocean-going vessel that receives coverage in reliable sources being a suitable subject for an article. Also, the article on the company will need to be NPOV and not give undue weight to the incident - or other criticisms that may surface as a result of news coverage of the incident. But this is not a mere news event; the present title does lay undue weight on the incident. The gap we should attempt to fill as soon as possible for encyclopedic coverage is the company, and the incident should logically be covered as an episode in the company's history. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While in theory that makes sense, there doesnt seem to be anything about either the ship or the company prior to the incident - leaving us in essentially the same place: no article about the ship because the only thing we can write about the ship is that its owners were involved in a potential crime, no article about the company except that its employees were potentially involved in a crime, no article about the incident until enough time has passed to show that it is more than a news blip. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see some usable sources on the company at the AfC, and as I say, the incident has made the company notable. As to the ship, my understanding is that the WikiProject sets a low bar; its vital statistics must be recorded somewhere, some of them are probably in the news coverage. I don't think the ship merits more than a stub, but I haven't looked into it yet so can't exclude the possibility that it has an interesting past. In short, there is no requirement for long or detailed articles on either the ship or the company; the real issue is whether they're notable, but I'd be surprised if nothing more could be assembled on the ship, and I see usable data on the company just looking at the last source cited at the AfC. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As the ship is neither a person or event, the fact there is only coverage about the ship in the context of this incident is irrelevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Please cancel the redirect and move the wiki back to Ship Name. This incident can be a section under the wiki of MV Seaman Guard Ohio.Quartzd (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete In the overall thick of things, not really a notable event. No significant long term effects on the world at large are going to come of this, and because of previous coatracking/attack language that earlier forms of this article have, its purpose seems specifically aimed to cast certain people and companies involved in a negative light. I would evoke WP:BLP1E to some degree (yes, not a BLP, but we are taking about living people involved with the issue. --M ASEM (t) 14:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and reverse move; while the incident may or may not grow legs, the ship itself is notable, as well explained by Yngvadottir and others above, and the fact that the coverage of the ship is WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED is irrelevant. (Also, those with less good faith might look at the move of the article from the ship name to "incident", immediately before this nomination was made, as a deliberate attempt to paint it as AfD-bait.) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the move, per, , , and, really, common sense. Yngvadottir asked me about this, not so much to weigh in on the AfD or on the move, but on what to do with an AfC for the related article, about the company, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdvanFort (2). You can read their comments on the talk page; in a nutshell, they asked me (I believe) since it could be considered disruptive if they start shuffling content and what not. At any rate, I wasn't aware until just now that the move was done in what could be considered a preparation for this AfD or at least an attendant operation: 's previous edits certainly point in that direction. Bushranger is kind enough to assume good faith, and so am I, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the article was about the ship, and that's what this discussion should focus on as well. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * uhh - all versions of the article that I saw had 1 unsourced paragraph about the ships equipment. That's the extent of the article that was about the ship. And then it had ooodles and ooodles and oodles (and now even more oodles) of information about the "incident" of which the ship  plays a completely trivial role other than being a convenient catch-all phrase.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I'm not saying your move came out of nowhere. And there is no doubt that coatracking is an issue, but it's not one we can't handle if (as this AfD should decide) the article on the ship itself stands--with the incident as part of it. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * so is this AfD now about "the ship" or about "the incident"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's obvious. Coatracking or not, the article was and is about the ship (ostensibly). If consensus decides that the ship can stand on its own merits, it stays. An AfD is about an article; this AfD is about the ship. The "incident" content (calling all of that verified content "coatracking" is probably hasty) may or may not contribute to the ship's notability; that's for the participants to decide. (I'm not going to move this AfD--I hope participants will pay attention to these comments.) For instance, I'd appreciate it if comes by again to speak out on the notability of the ship as a ship, and it would be helpful if verified content about the ship were added since, I grant you this immediately, the article in its current state does not have a lot to say about it. If there's really nothing to say about it, then Masem's point may well stand ("BLP1E as applied to non-ghost ships"). And my move back does not mean that coatracking isn't a serious and valid issue to bring up here, far from it. But that's for participants here to decide. I don't really know what notability standards for ships are, to which extent basic factual information from registries etc. helps toward meeting GNG requirements, and that's not really my job. But I do know that it's fair to not move the article's focus rather drastically just before an AfD, and that's what your move did. That's all. If editors here decide that the article is really not about the ship but about the incident, and/or if they think that this incident is coatracking and/or not noteworthy enough, they will vote delete. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: On the question whether the ship is notable: I again continue to take the concept (but not exact language) of WP:BLP1E applies. I consider the example of Exxon Valdez (the ship) and Exxon Valdez oil spill (the incident) as an example - most of the notability of that ship is from the oil spill, and there's little question that was a notable event, but even then I would think the ship and incident could be merged without losing any information. Here, we're already struggling with notability of the incident (per NEVENT) and that makes me question if even the ship is notable, and since the only bit about the ship is its participation in this. (This is a separate issue from the coatrack aspects). Really, this is a decent story to be covered at Wikinews, but seems like a footnote to an article or list of maritime incidents on en.wiki, due to the fact there was no loss of life or property involved. --M ASEM  (t) 20:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Masem. I hope you don't mind my re-indenting this; your comment is relevant to the AfD as a whole and I don't want it to get lost in the mix. Editors: note how carefully Masem delineates notability and coatracking. These are the kinds of comments admins need to compile a final judgment on an AfD or any other community discussion. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (and Move or Reverse Move to the ship's name); while it's sad that there are pirates today and a need to combat piracy, the tools, methods, politics, ... all of what is used to combat them, have notability (and notoriety, but that doesn't negate notability.) More ships will be involved, crossing boundaries inadvertently (or not) and then they or their crews detained and further processes gather press. We will need to have articles about all of this, and this is a good place to start. htom (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I find despicable the manner in which packed my talk page with clutter by throwing in all kinds of tags ranging from "Potential conflict of interest", "Username issues", etc., just because I edited the article page with some information that is freely referenced in newspapers. He ought to stop seeing things in red Arccotangent (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * keep and reverse to MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident... seems notable...   M  aurice    C arbonaro     09:13, 24 October 2013 (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.