Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MY Le Ponant


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

MY Le Ponant

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

This is a news article in disguise. The details of individual highjackings are not encyclopedic. WP:NOT. Rd232 talk 03:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Hijackings are sufficiently rare to establish notability, even with the increased amount of hijackings off Somalia in the past year and a half. Meets verifiablility criteria and reliable sources criteria, thus notability is established. Mjroots (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't challenged on grounds of notability. WP:NOTNEWS violations usually come with a hatful of verified WP:RS. But not everything reported in newspapers is encyclopedic, not by a long shot. Rd232 talk 04:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of ships attacked by Somali pirates any material that isn't already there. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This particular hijacking is notable because of the French military action taken on Somali land, a potential act of war, and because the six captured accused pirates are to be tried in France.Rhinoracer (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for mentioning it in an article about piracy. I don't see that it justifies newspaper-like detail on the incident. At the very least, the article should be renamed to focus on the incident. Rd232 talk 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All of the individual ship articles are valuable as a source of information on what kind of ships are being attacked, and a mere list like List of ships attacked by Somali pirates is not good enough to do that. Naming these events "Incident of month day year" does not work, as they often play out over several days or months, and there may be more than one incident per day. Other significant events involving ships are usually named after ther ship e.g. Titanic and not the date.  By the reasoning above, the Titanic article should be deleted, as the ship was on its maiden voyage, and is not noted for anything but sinking. Pustelnik (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "All of the individual ship articles are valuable as a source of information on what kind of ships are being attacked." That information should be summarised in Piracy in Somalia as well as listed in List of ships attacked by Somali pirates; we should not expect readers to trawl through a myriad of ship articles to draw a conclusion on what kind of ships are being attacked. In any case, the problem is this is not an article on the ship, it is an article on the details of the highjacking of it. At minimum it should be renamed Highjacking of MY Le Ponant, or some such. It is a news article masquerading as an encyclopedia article, and that masquerade is substantially aided by being misnamed. Rd232 talk 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Titanic has been the subject of hundreds of books, articles, and movies over the years. List of ships attacked by Somali pirates contains information about each ship attacked in terms of what kind of ship it was, the crew, the cargo, and a brief description of the incident.  It would be perfectly acceptable to expand those entries slightly in cases where there isn't enough information for a full article.  --Clay Collier (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Ships cost millions of dollars. If there are WP:RS we can use as references, why shouldn't we cover every single one?  Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because apart from its dimensions (WP:NOT a directory (WP:DIRECTORY) there is little or nothing in those WP:RS which doesn't relate to the event. (Also WP:NOTNEWS.) Rd232 talk 01:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2009 (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.