Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1852 Indian Ocean storm surge


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Kubigula (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

1852 Indian Ocean storm surge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Could not verify occurrence. Sourced (with broken ISBN) only to a biographical book concerning the ancestor of someone who supposedly died in the incident. Did not find any non-mirrored mention via Google search. Article is also a near-orphan with parts copied from 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Paul_012 (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. If we can't confirm that this actually happened, I imagine we'll have a hard time proving notability. But the date would imply that off-line sources would be available; perhaps someone would have a look? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete If there are no sources there can not be an article. It also seems that if the one shipwreck (the only specific information in the article) is the most notable point, then it would probably be better to have an article on that. BigJim707 (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There's one rather doubtful source - can anyone substantiate it? If so, happy to reconsider. But no sign yet of multiple RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 21:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.