Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1918 Vancouver Island earthquake


 * 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 Keep. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

1918 Vancouver Island earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This one may not be significant enough to have a stand-alone article as per WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines. No deaths, ~ 7.0, and minimal damage. Article has had a small expansion in the last few days but wanted to put it before the group before going any further. Dawnseeker2000  01:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - That's a REALLY good source showing, even though it's paywalled. This probably passes GNG between that and contemporary newspaper coverage, regardless of death count or damage tab. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do not see how this earthquake is not notable despite WP Earthquake's notability guideline. This is one of Canada's largest earthquakes in the 20th century and from doing a simple Google search there are reliable sources for this earthquake. Furthermore, WP Earthquake's notability guideline states "Intensity of VII or greater on the Mercalli scale or European Macroseismic Scale, or 6.0 or greater on the Shindo scale." This earthquake had a maximum intensity of VII (Very Strong) on the Mercalli intensity scale.  Volcano guy  19:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's somewhat marginal on the guidelines, being 7.2 in magnitude (I need to correct that in the article) VII on the MMI and having a single scientific paper devoted to it, but I would tend to keep in such situations. If anyone would like to see pretty much the same content as the BSSA paper, this is a link to Cassidy's MSc thesis . Mikenorton (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination - OK, thank for the input. Well we probably don't need to keep this thing going, now that I've got the pulse of some of the regulars. Any feathers ruffled unintentional. Dawnseeker2000   21:33, 27 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.