Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 Chagos Archipelago 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

1983 Chagos Archipelago earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not every earthquake needs an article Eucberar (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I am against the namination of the deletion. I would like to know what's the reason, and what's the ideal criteria for a valid earthquake entry for user EucBerar. Qrfqr (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Although not every earthquake needs an article, you have to have reasons based on policy to propose deletion. This earthquake is marginally notable as it appears in several published scientific papers (after taking a quick look). As with other articles that you have nominated, this should be expanded rather than deleted. Mikenorton (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No policy given by nominator.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Some earthquakes do need articles. This rationale is dumb, but no different than the argument being used by the nominator here. This series of earthquake article notability challenges offered NO RATIONALE WHATSOEVER for their exclusion. They should all be given speedy administrative keeps. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per this proposed guideline, which the consensus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. In this case, it was about a 7.7 earthquake (on the M-s scale), and had a small, 40 cm tsunami. Bearian (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2010 (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.