User talk:Macintosher

2010 Bladon Air Accident Discussion

I've nominated 2010 Bladon aeroplane crash for deletion, as I don't think it meets the notability requirements. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bladon aeroplane crash. If it is deleted, you could write on such topics at another project I work on, Wikinews. Please don't be put off Wikipedia either; it can be very hard to get started round here but once you settle in it's much better. I'm going to give you the standard welcome message too; it's packed with helpful links. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to my user talk page. Obviously I realise that the content I've already committed to Wikipedia doesn't yet meet all the standards, however, I would be grateful if you'd leave the article on the Bladon Air Accident, and consider my previous explanation. If after the crash investigation you'd like to delete it, due to lack of notability, feel free. However, the page is linked to by other entries. Feel free to talk again about this! Macintosher (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with having an article hanging around for every one of these accidents is that there are just too many; we'd be flooded. Take the US (purely because they way they publish investigative stuff makes them an easy example to show you). They've already had five fatal crashes this year and several others, in just 15 days. Then take into account all the countries in the world... That's a lot of wrecks. We can always recreate if something does come up. If it is deleted and you want to keep a copy in case something notable is discovered, tell me on my talk page and I'll give you a copy at User:Macintosher/Bladon Air Accident. I am an administrator here so I can still see it if it is deleted. That dicussion I started will run for several days anyway, so there should be lots of discussion! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I'd rather it was kept, but please save a copy under the path proposed above if you must delete it. I think you should wait simply because crashes of Piper PA-31s are rare, as are crashes at Oxford Airport. I know there seem to be a lot of crashes, but in my opinion we must treat all fatals as significant unless otherwise proven. Macintosher (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The above title now contains your copy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will monitor the situation and if anything unusual or notable appears I will republish the article to the fullest extent relevant to WP readers. Macintosher (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Keswick accident article

Happy to be of help. I'll defend it if it's nominated, as in my opinion a bus crash involving at minimum three deaths is notable enough to be written up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

You might want to check out the contents of Category:Current events before creating articles on breaking news. It looks like you were beaten to the punch by half an hour when creating 2010 Falls of Cruachan train accident, so I;ve redirected, as it was pretty much duplication. Feel free to carry on working at the Falls of Cruachan derailment article, although I've put it up for deletion for the reasons stated here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work in making sure the articles could be merged and indeed merging them. I'm sure that the article should not be deleted but I have stated my reasons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_Oban_derailment . Macintosher (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that you created the duplicate article. You have to be quick with these to stand any chance whatsoever of getting an ITN article. The best way to counter the AfD debate is to keep working away at improving the article. We should have a week which is plenty of time for more details to emerge and add them to the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I know! I've already created several transportation accident articles soon after the events and this is my first duplication, so I suppose it is partly bad luck. Well, I shall see what I can do in terms of making sure the article is not prone to deletion - as you say, to counter AfD. Macintosher (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Sudbury train accident / 2010 Little Cornard derailment

It appears we have duplicate article again! Whilst the article you created was the earlier of the two, the one I created is better developed, and the title is more accurate as to the location. Do you have any objections to merging the articles and making the Sudbury title into a redirect (thus preserving edit history)? Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections. Go ahead if you think we can keep all the information in one place efficiently. Macintosher (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, have just seen that you have already redirected. Good! Macintosher (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2010 Keswick coach accident

The article 2010 Keswick coach accident has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tragic incident but no lasting significance (WP:NOTNEWS)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)