Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piracy High Risk Area


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Piracy High Risk Area

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be sourced primarily from one website.

"Piracy in the Strait of Hormuz" is seems more like a recentism. Mootros (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - there are other articles like this, such as the Maritime Security Patrol Area for the Gulf of Oman, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy in the Strait of Malacca. The article includes events going back several years, so I don't see how WP:RECENTISM applies. It doesn't seem to be sourced from one website either, and there are plenty of additional sources,, , , , which note this particular area is a gold mine because of the oil tankers.  —Мандичка YO 😜 09:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article asserts, essentially, that facts of today are always and forever the same facts. Look at the article title: "Piracy High Risk Area." That's an absurd title, because the area of high risk for piracy is an absolute. Isn't the Caribbean still "the" high risk area for piracy, if we take all acts of piracy together through history and combine them, or is it the Mediterranean, where the Romans were constantly chasing pirates? Well, this article asserts "the" area of "high risk" for "piracy": it's an absurd concept in an encyclopedia. It's fine for a governmental news release, for a newspaper, or for a morning briefing. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't even look at the article. It has clearly been renamed Piracy in the Strait of Hormuz and is only about piracy in the Strait of Hormuz. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination is mislisted, you're saying? I will happily strike. I wonder if there are perhaps any. . . other actions that might need to be taken besides that? No? Hithladaeus (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not sure of the current state of the article, and whether it needs to be improved in any way. I also make it a policy to never read articles before I decide whether or not they should be deleted. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the angels above are already singing your benevolence. I was only wondering if the listing might benefit from some of this surplus virtue. Apparently not. I'm sure you would know. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be up to the creator of this AfD to update the description - I really don't know what is talking about in regards to recentism. There aren't any pirating events there recently. There was this incident with Iran but it's not related to piracy.  —Мандичка YO 😜 16:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - this probably should have been a retitling / moving discussion rather than an AFD as the main concern clearly related to the title and all other issues flowed from that. There were certainly strong arguments in that regard but with that issue resolved, there doesn't seem to be any outstanding policy-based reasons for deletion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:54, 3 June 2015 (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.