Talk:1974 British Airways bombing attempt

Yet another Fitzpatrick sockpuppet I suspect. I shan't bother assessing it until it survives deletion.Petebutt (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What does this mean?? Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, the article had a major error - the date wrong by a year and a day. Maybe it will go but at least its closer to accurate.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong user name see User:Ryan kirkpatrick.Petebutt (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well delete if you want but I reserve the right to recreate as it's a notable topic. Besides the article has been substantially changed since creation Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not enough evidence for a sockpuppet investigation yet. The notability issue is a toss-up I am not sure about. If I nominate it for Afd, then a concensus will decide the fate of it. Any objections.Petebutt (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Copied from a discussion on User talk:Petebutt
== 1973 British Airways bombing attempt == Can you explain this WP:PROD a bit more? On the face of it this looks like a reasonable article - I accept that a failed bombing might not be notable, but I'd like to see an AFD on that really. But I don't want to de-prod it yet in case I'm missing something re sockpuppets. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC) :It bears all the hallmarks of a known sockpuppet user, i.e. Very poor grammar and spelling, obsession with terrorism, writing articles on very obscure non-notable aircraft incidents / accidents. I must apologise; I have the wrong user see Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick, close but not close enough. It still fits his Modus Operandi.Petebutt (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC) :::Even if notable the major issue is the use of a sockpuppet. which warrants IMMEDIATE deletion.

==Sockpuppet evidence== Hard evidence is a bit lacking, just the subject matter, the authors grammar and spelling, (as originally posted), and previous sock puppets from the assumed author i.e. User:Ryan kirkpatrickPetebutt (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Petebutt (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion?
The dichotomy is that this article was written by a blocked editor before the block was enforced. Are blocks retro-active? If so, it would be a shame, as the article has been transformed into acceptability by reputable editors since its creation.Petebutt (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Acceptable form, possibly, but is it actually notable per se and might it be better placed as a paragraph in another article. My contributions were to fix a flawed article (wrong date being the worst element in retrospect) as it existed rather than to preserve it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)