Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanit (yacht)


 * 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   merge to Action of 9 April 2009.  MBisanz  talk 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tanit (yacht)

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

I am aware that articles do exist on many ships that were hijacked by Somali pirates, and in most cases I agree that the articles are warranted. The reason I have nominated this article is because, whilst most articles on ships hijacked deal with quite major ships, like tankers and big cargo ships and such, this article is dealing with someone's privately owned yacht. I do not feel an article is appropriate about someone's privately owned yacht, especially considering the notability of the ship (its hijacking and the subsequent attack by French forces) is covered at Action of 9 April 2009. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree, and as evidence, claim the interest of others who have added to or modified the article. It is certainly notable, and has been mentioned in news articles worlwide.   Action of 9 April 2009 should probably be merged into the Tanit article, as the vessel and its name are more memorable than the ship. I move to keep the article. Pustelnik (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With regards to other people editing, many articles which have been deleted in the past have been edited by a substantial number of editors (case in point, the article on Alexandros Grigoropoulos). I do not deny news coverage of the ship is widespread, but such coverage is in the context of its hijacking and subsequent assault by French forces, hence why I support keeping Action of 9 April 2009 and not the article on the yacht.   The ship itself isn't notable, but its hijacking and the assault is.  I agree Tanit is a memorable name, but the article can always be re-directed to Action of 9 April 2009 so as to add readers looking for information.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On another point, I am very open to a merge. I would support merging an article on a hijacking into the article on the ship captured if the ship were a major one like a cargo ship or tanker.  However, in this case, if a merge is an option, I support keeping Action of 9 April 2009 and merging the Tanit article into that, since the Tanit as a ship has absolutely no independent notability outside the hijacking and assault.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. MyDog22 (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, unless there are sources (that I'm not finding) establishing the notability of the yacht apart from this incident. Deor (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Smerge (selective merge) to the article on the incident. Per WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Tanit (yacht), to keep other lists internally consistent, particularly those related to Piracy in Somalia. I will request input from ships and piracy Wiki Projects. Pustelnik (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst the other ships which have been hijacked that also have articles on Wikipedia are quite major ships in as so far as they tend to be cargo ships or tankers, and thus have some notability outside the incident, this boat was a private yacht that does not reasonably have any, nor have I been able to find any evidence of, independent notability outside the hijacking. Therefore, if we are to merge, I advocate that it should be the Tanit article that is merged into the article on the hijacking and subsequent retaking.  Plus, Pustelnik, if you are certain of your merge !vote, please could you strike out your earlier keep motion.  Thank you in advance.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This yacht is as notable as MY Le Ponant, another French yacht which was hijacked by Somali pirates and in which French forces intervened. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just because an article on MY Le Ponant exists, doesn't mean one on the Tanit should. Plus, they are very different yachts.  Le Ponant is a commercial yacht catering up to 67 people, whereas the Tanit is someone's small private yacht.  Plus, whereas there is no additional article covering the hijacking of Le Ponant and assault, there is an article on the Action of 9 April 2009 for which the Tanit is notable.  Outside of the action, the Tanit has no independent notability, and hence why I support a delete or a merge into the article on the action.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that ships listed on Wikipedia be large, or any disqualification for being privately owned. The yacht is notable for the attempted voyage, with an international following on the internet, even if it were not captured by pirates.  There is a third yacht with a similar article, the Carré d'As IV, which was small and privately owned.  Pustelnik (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think calling a blog by the owner of the Tacht having received a following is a bit dramatic, and plus the blog hasn't received such coverage as to warrant an article on the yacht as per WP:Notability. The only thing notable about the yacht is its hijacking and the assault, and that is covered on another article.  Whilst no guideline or policy says a private yacht can't have its own article, we can use common sense.  This is someone's private yacht; a small craft for a few people of the type owned by countless around the world.  The only thing it is notable for is the hijacking and assault, and that is covered elsewhere.  As for the Carré d'As IV, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Tanit (yacht) into Action of 9 April 2009 to avoid unnecessary duplication (yacht notable only for one event, and nothing to be said about it not coverable there), then delete that event article as violation of WP:NOTNEWS, or, at a push, merge somewhere else. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Rd232 talk 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into List of ships attacked by Somali pirates any information that isn't already there. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is disingenuous. List of ships attacked by Somali pirates exists partly as a source for referring to articles, as do most of such lists. Pustelnik (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing says that lists can contain only referrals to other articles. The list contains additional information about all of the ships listed and appears to cover most of the relevant information about the ship in question.  WP:AGF.  --Clay Collier (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm changing my mind. The fact that this is a small, privately-owned yacht is relevant, in the context of the pirates justification for piracy that they are poor fishermen defending Somalia from illegal fishing and dumping.  There is no way an illiterate fisherman would mistake this vessel as a commercial fishing vessel or a toxic waste hauler. The Action of 9 April 2009 article is poorly titled, as the incident involves actions on other dates as well. Pustelnik (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping on the article cannot be kept on the justification that we are trying to prove a point about the pirates. Plus, the Action title is correct as per the regular titling of most hijacking articles, and the information from the Tanit article is useful as background information to the Action.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ship hijackings are sufficiently rare enough to establish notability of vessel. Titanic is only noted for one thing - Sinking. Nobody's rushing to delete that though! Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed your keep !vote, since you've already registered a keep !vote. Thousands of ships around the world have been hijacked over recent years, and this small yacht in no way can be compared to one of the worst maritime disasters in history.  It was the scale of the disaster that makes the Titanic notable.  This boat was a setting for a hijacking and assault, and this small yacht has absolutely nothing else notable about it all.   JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine re removing the vote. I wasn't sure if they were all considered or just those on the relist. There have not been thousands of hijacked ships in recent years. Even though the number of attacks has roughly doubled this year compared to last year, there are thousands of ships which do not get hijacked. Which is why I assert that any ship hijackd is sufficiently notable to have an article. Size of the boat/ship is irrelevant in this context. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per Rd232. Renaissancee (talk) 00:15, 29 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) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 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.