This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article 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
Support - I originally added it to the current events pages under the heading Gleision Colliery disaster, but then this article was created. Tragedy sounds better anyway. TheRetroGuy (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Object on Wait grounds - I really wonder what we are going to be able to collect, let alone reference or write on this disaster long term? This "article" is basically a copy of the same text on the main Tarenni Colliery article, with the names of the deceased collected from the single reference from SkyNews. If the mine itself is not notable enough for its own article (mainly due to lack of refs), then unless the coroner comes out and says something notable, the best sustainable long term prognosis for this article is a redirect/merge back to the main Tarreni article. Hence personally, debating/directing to disaster/tragedy etc, is not much a debate at all. At the moment this is a useful edit-buffer for the main article, so I won't yet propose a delete debate. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Comment - It definitely needs more references than the one it has at present. I can help with a few BBC refs I collected for the current events entries, so might do that later today. Must confess I was surprised to see this as a stand-alone article, but one thing we might need to consider is that it is the worst mining accident in Wales for many years, maybe that in itself makes it notable for that reason. Also (as these things go), because of the tragedy Gleision is probably now more notable than Tarenni. TheRetroGuy (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
ok, I have expanded this quite considerably now, beyond the cut/paste which was taken from the main article, and updated and referenced it. It should be all right as a standalone article now, although if anyone wants to substitute the large number of BBC references for sources from other publications then please feel free to do that. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Dead Link to HSE report, HSE no longer have a public copy, but a copy of the HSE report exists in the Australian mine accident information database
