Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Biak 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)

1996 Biak 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) 10:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This earthquake meets every part of the suggested Notability guidelines for earthquake articles. It's just about notable for the magnitude alone, it caused multiple deaths, it is covered in more than one published paper etc.. It does need expanding but there's no question regarding its notability IMO. Mikenorton (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Mag 8, killed 100+ people. Enough WP:RS too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This earthquake has met the suggested criteria for notable earthquakes. Qrfqr (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This earthquake is significant enough. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Snow. Over a magnitude of 8, with casualties. There are admittedly many sketchy earthquake articles launched, but this is so far over the notability bar that it baffles. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per this proposed guideline, which the consesus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Very notable quake, just needs expansion. RapidR (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no need to invoke any proposed specialised notability guideline here, because notability can easily be proved the old-fashioned way with significant conerage in independent reliable sources such as these academic papers and these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 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.