Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Mumbai landslide


 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

2000 Mumbai landslide

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article sounds like a news article, which doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. It only talks about no. of people killed and the reason for landslide (in two lines). -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The stubs are allowed to exist. It is referenced .Large number of lives were lost and it is an important incident in history of modern Mumbai. If wikipedia would have been there in 2000 the page would have readily created and accepted like this one 2011 Hindukush earthquake even though there was no loss of life.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2011 Hindukush earthquake din't only took place at a single place. The earthquake was felt in 3 countries at the magnitude of 5.5. In that case, 2011 Mumbai landslides didn't took place all over the Mumbai, it just took place at a suburb of Mumbai. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Week Keep The article seems like a news article as pointed out but the news sources are fine, is there a place where this can be redirected to? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep  2011 Mumbai landslides didn't took place all over the Mumbai i dont think that is a good counter arguement. Landslides never generally dont take place all over a city (other than a Hollywood movies) , This incident qualifies as a notable natural disaster due to the number of lives lost and coverage in national print media, Passes WP:GNG-- D ℬig  Xray   20:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to DBigXray — it's possible for them to take place all over a city in real life. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nyttend for the link, I have struck of my comment, By the way the calamity you linked was volcanic eruption although landslide did occur as a result, thanks-- D ℬig Xray   22:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There are currently only two sources on the article. Shouldn't it have a little more for GNG to apply? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rsri after my recent edits it has 5 sources. The incident has Coverage in international Media BBC news, National newpaper Tribune, and coverage in 2 books That I have added as reference. should pass WP:GNG why do you think otherwise ? -- D ℬig  Xray   22:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @DBigXray: One of those books (Current ref5) says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I have removed the mirror source, thanks for pointing out Animesh, any comments on the GNG by the way ?-- D ℬig Xray   09:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is enough coverage in WP:RS thus passes WP:GNG.  →TSU tp* 12:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets GNG.  And, let's not live in a world where the killing of 67 people in a natural disaster is readily dismissed.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets GNG. Although with some more expansion we can decided to maybe move it to "2000 Mumbai floods". Irrespective of that, its a Keep for sure. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Meets GNG. - Bharathiya 03:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (talk)
 * 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.