This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disaster management Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't this be its own article? 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 22:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, this should be a separate article. According to this BBC article, the top kill is a procedure that "has been carried out many times around the world." It is in no way specific to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to which "Top kill" currently redirects. Dricherby ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I've nominated the redirect for deletion. Dricherby ( talk) 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I notice that the {{ refimprove}} tag has been added to this stub article. Why? What are the limits for its inclusion on a three line stub article? Is the BBC an unreliable source? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a short stub such as this (not on a BLP) should have only one source that is authoritative. The BBC article covers all the angles, what exactly needs improving about it specifically? Woody ( talk) 01:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You are quite right, of course. My bad. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, thanks for responding so promptly to my concern. Regards, Woody ( talk) 01:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I suggest this article be merged or linked with the more extensive Well kill. - 174.51.44.36 ( talk) 05:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Isn't this also used onshore? From what I remember hearing on AC360 and other news programs, they say that it is almost 100% successful on land...

76.66.193.224 ( talk) 06:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Looks like someone corrected the error. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 07:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply