Talk:Venture One diving accident

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 December 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Venture One diving accident 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

Underwater diving Low‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This redirect is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead section

The lead section should be a brief summary of the content of the whole article. See WP:MOSLEAD • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:32, 21 February 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Where is the link to the inquiry report?

The entire article is based largely off the Fatal Accident Inquiry report, but the report itself is not linked to the article making the assertions contained within it unconfirmable. Graham1973 (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The report may not be available as an electronic document. This does not make it impossible to verify, just inconvenient. Paper only documents are acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. Court documents/reports are usually considered reliable sources. Perhaps the major contributor could provide a copy to you or to Wikipedia if you ask. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a man dies at 492 feet, it is not likely that there will be witnesses. Better than a sketchy news article (Hoffman’s death was barely mentioned in the press) and written by a non-diver is a transcript of a Fatal Accident Inquiry because the witnesses are in Court, under oath, giving testimony about what happened (primary source information). Fatal Accident Inquiry transcripts are not available on line, nor through any electronic link, because the Court sells these transcripts. I have a copy because I traveled to Aberdeen in 1996 and paid the Court for the document and for about a dozen other FAI transcripts. If Fatal Accident Inquiry transcripts are not sufficient documentation to meet WP’s requirements, then delete the article. MichaelSmart (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelSmart These days it is quite possible for a similar accident to be recorded on CCTV, but your point is correct. Court records are generally considered a reliable source. You have explained the unavailability on the internet, which was previously noted. Graham1973 was unable to verify, but that is life. Unless there is some reason to suspect that the information has not been accurately represented, there is no problem. No-one has made this claim, so it is not currently a problem. As a gesture of good faith and cooperation you may choose to provide a copy of part or all of a transcript to allay the concerns of an editor, on specific request, but this is by no means required. Anyone sufficiently concerned is free to acquire the relevant transcript in the same way that you did. Maybe someone will, maybe not. It would be desirable if someone were to add other sources, more sources is usually better, but again, that is optional and not your problem. I have taken the liberty of indenting your reply to conform with the usual talk page formatting. This is Wikipedia, you eventually get used to it.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]