Almost certainly not.
I'm going to assume that everything written in this piece is true. But take a hard-eyed look at it. Strip out all the speculation and unsupported assumptions. What does it actually say? That they've found the remains of a wooden structure. Whether or not the structure was a boat would need to be determined by someone qualified (I'd like to see the actual qualifications of the people quoted in this article). But even if it is, it's a long leap from finding a boat to assuming you've found Noah's ark.
What's the evidence that these remains are of the boat described in Genesis? An ostensible similarity in dimensions? Insufficient, it's far too easy for that to be coincidence, especially considering how much error is likely in these kinds of mesurements. They found animal bones in the dirt? Come on. Dig deep enough in any area with a wildlife population and you're going to find animal remains. Or should we assume that, after the flood, Noah lock a bunch on animals on the ark and left them there for spite? Traditions? That does, after all, seem to be the basis of this assumption. There are traditions that connect Ararat with Noah's ark, so anything ship-like that gets discovered there becomes "Noah's ark".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, all the author offers here is a whole bunch of speculation. Even taking all the information in this article at face value, it makes a very weak case for having discovered the historical 'ark'.
UPDATE: Having read a report from Dr. Andrew Snelling of creation.com, it turns out that even taking the post at face value was giving it too much credit. The post was filled to the brim with outright falsehoods, and it now sounds exceptionally unlikely that there was even a wooden structure there.