Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985 Wuqia 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) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

1985 Wuqia earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not every earthquake is notable. This article doesn't suggest that this earthquake was newsworthy and it doesn't have any sources that do more than just demonstrate its existence, not its significance. Eucberar (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the sources is the USGS list of significant earthquakes, what more do you need? Also has good coverage in the scientific literature. Should be expanded, but that's no criterion for deletion. Mikenorton (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This earthquake has met the suggested criteria for notable earthquakes. Qrfqr (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This earthquake is significant enough. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes Rule of 7, I've said my piece on this above. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - per this proposed guideline, which the consesus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. However, it is not clear that this earthquake meets all the guideline's factors. For example, it was a 7.4 on the Mercallu, but did any humans die? Bearian (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the guidelines suggest that more than one criteria should normally be met, rather than all. There were 64 deaths according to the infobox and at least 71 according to the USGS ref (clearly it does need some work and it's on my list of stubs to expand). Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! The refs I read did not clearly establish that, but I did not look into every cite. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 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.