Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake Countries That Were Not Directly Affected But Have Lost Citizens

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was deleted at 01:10, 28 Dec 2004 by CryptoDerk who did not close out this discussion page.

In preparing to close the discussion page, I note that CryptoDerk wrote (confirmed that it was merged with the main article). Since this was merged, not simply deleted, we must preserve the attribution history in order to comply with GFDL. I have restored it and converted it to a redirect to the main article instead. Rossami (talk) 03:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake Countries That Were Not Directly Affected But Have Lost Citizens
Vfd tag added by Cantus, however they did not deem it useful to also list the page here. No opinion at present personally. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 21:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful information, and not enough space for it on the main page 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake - MPF 21:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful. --Frankman 21:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Poor title, page has no context outside of the parent article (simply a direct dump of content with no explanation behind it). Re-merge for now, deal with excessive size and/or summarisation once page is no longer in high state of flux. Discussion is commencing at Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was incorrectly marked as a speedy by cantus first. Keep, but if someone can come up with a good title that'd be nice. --fvw *  21:24, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
 * Now I know a little more about how it came into being: delete --fvw *  07:49, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)


 * Yeah not a great title, but I think this page is useful - not that I'm biased :) Bobchalk 21:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Move .. somewhere. This title is terrible. -Ld | talk 21:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete This content has been moved to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Paul August &#9742; 23:01, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with Tsunami article under a seperate subheading, perhaps 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami? Majority of people were killed by the tsunami rather than the earthquake. The present title is very cumbersome. Megan1967 23:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Move or Merge or something, but don't leave it like this. Tuf-Kat 23:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, information has been merged in what appears to be its entirety to 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake. hfool 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete violet/riga (t) 00:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ld and Tuf-Kat. Interesting (but sadly so) and useful list...horrendous title.  Maybe merge this to the main article? - Lucky 6.9 00:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: already remerged into main article.  There's a bit of tussle between the people who want to keep all the earthquake info on one page until the situation stabilizes in a few days, and those who can't stand the fact that its above 32kb and are cutting sections out and pasting them on new pages (or just blanking the end of the article).  BanyanTree 01:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * off-topic question, sorry: are they 'blanking' it because their browsers can't cope with edit boxes that big? Kappa 01:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or merge/redir back in. First, the 32K "limit" is somewhat archaic and arbitrary--I test software for a living, have current versions of all common browsers, and they don't have a problem at 32K--older versions, such as Netscape 4 look like crap, let alone editing. And _if_ something must be split off, there's got to be a way to do so under a cleaner title, such as moving the discussion of the tsunami effects to a separate article from the earthquake itself. Looking at the talk page, only one user wants this division under discussion, and all others think it is not the way to go. Make sure sections are under 32k, put a 'fake' edit link on the first section if necessary, or whatever, but splitting this particular chunk off to meet the 32K 'desired' limit seems ill-advised. Niteowlneils 12:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: May I direct people to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake no. Another poorly named and poorly structured offshoot. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge: Doesn't need to be its own article. There are only about 200 countries on the planet, so even if 190 of them lost citizens beyond those directly affect, it won't take up too much space to list them. Plus until the Tsumani/Earthquake is no longer a current event, this type of information should be in one place otherwise we'll end up with duplication. 23skidoo 03:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.