Talk:Richard Phillips (captain)

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Phillips (captain) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

hmm

maybe this page should be on homepage ? it is realy hard to find this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by OspreyPL (talk • contribs) 19:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this page, unless Captain Phillips wants it removed.

We Americans need something to feel proud about. Leave it here for a while. If Mr.Phillips wants it removed, then by all means, do so. But at least let us think about this person and about the events surrounding his capture and eventual freedom. We would all do well to ponder this event.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.9.245 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making Americans proud is not a reason to keep an article. Also, Americans shouldn't feel more or less proud of Phillips based on if he has a wiki page. --Torsodog^Talk 11:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important u-turn moment in history of Somalian piracy. This article shall not be removed. I am proud of US reaponse to this difficult situation. (and lol - I am not even an American) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.46.19 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't here for anyone's pride, and this page isn't a forum to discuss one's feelings about the man or the incident. A Wikipedia article serves to provide information about notable people. - 67.39.251.254 (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldad_Regev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Goldwasser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.118.9 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article can easily be merged to the ship's article that already covers the whole incident. --Tone 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An American hating socialist would say that... 72.10.215.230 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you give a good argument why WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here, I will merge the article into the ship's one. --Tone 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something up for debate right now. The proper steps were taken, by someone who felt like Phillips doesn't deserve his own wikipedia article. As it says at the top of this page, the result is "no concensus" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Phillips_(captain) It was recommended to be re-evaluated at a later date. At that time, someone who wants to do it, can follow the proper channels. That way it doesn't get discussed it here. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems sensible to me. 90.242.145.14 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Andrew_w_munro[reply]

I also think this should be merged, BUT the AfD just got a no consensus, so I suggest we simply wait a bit until the story dies down and people's emotions are less heightened. It will then be easier to see if this article is worth of being a standalone. --Torsodog^Talk 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discusses possible deletion, not merging. Merging is something that needs to be discussed on the talkpage - here. Deletion is obviously not an issue here, the content is valid and should be presented somewhere. Besides, a quick look at the AfD shows that most of the people that gave arguments for their votes considered a merge. --Tone 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the merger discussion on this article's main page, it takes you to the MV Maersk Alabama talk page. I opposed it there. If a merger were to happen, I believe it would be better to merge with Maersk Alabama hijacking. Not that I would support it either way. You may want to discuss this merger where the merger infobox directs people to discuss it. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, moving the discussion there. --Tone 22:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have another point to make, i am interested in this man because he has been a witness of some extreme 'counter'violence. Now being a captain on the high seas is not only romantic, there is a lot of corruption and (eg. around somalia), illegal dumping he may have knowledge of. That he is still a captain surely suggests so. So i saw this picture of his with the commodore, and he looked rather shocked. Also i found no direct reference to his words after the incident. Although he definetly escaped in possesion of his tongue. So my impression is he is not that much impressed with the 'rescue' or commando action. Anyway, wether he is or not, he will be relevant, either he will be among the first to publically claim a negative experience from being rescued by terror squads, or he will be one of the next to write a predictable book about the 'horrors of hostageness' (promote swat iow.). So i would be interested very much in specific links to his own words and, the sooner the better. 24.132.170.97 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is a no-brainer. Capt. Phillips' life does not merit a wikipedia page based on anything other than this pirate incident, and the pirate incident has its own article. This article should not exist. Vidor (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, no-brainer per WP:1E. Quite clear. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 22:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - classic case of WP:1E. I suggest it gets re-nominated for AfD in a week or two once he's out of the news. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mere, not thing else to say beyond the piracy incident, and it's already in Maersk Alabama hijacking. 207.233.71.96 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger to Maersk Alabama hijacking

This merger was never properly discussed, and should never have happened. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you might have missed, the merger was mainly discussed here: [1]. If a merger had occurred based on what was said on this talk page alone, I would agree a merger was unwarranted. However, I think the discussion on the page I have linked to was sufficiently developed to make a decision. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Merge proponents simply ignored the strong arguments against merging. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too think this merge was not the result of arriving at a consensus, since those who supported merging simply ignored the IMO highly valid points of those arguing for continuing to have discrete articles. Further, once this article was redirected merge proponents appeared to be unwilling or unable to make the serious good faith efforts necessary to actually merge the properly referenced notable material from the Phillips's article. For these two reasons I suggest the redirection should be reverted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of this article with Captain Phillips

The merger had NO consensus. Those who advocate the merger have the burden of proof as per WP policy. 99.35.227.203 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]