Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Banda Sea 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   delete. I'm sorry but the delete !voters in this one make a pretty good case for WP:NOTNEWS. There are some suggestions to merge but currently there is no target. If someone wishes to write an article about earthquakes in this region and wishes to merge anything from this article, I'll be glad to restore it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

2005 Banda Sea earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not of lasting significance. The BBC reported five years ago there were no injuries or damage. — Mike moral  ♪♫  23:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with the other Banda earthquake articles - No sign of checking the projects (earthquakes or Indonesia) or the more obvious sources - the USGS or the Indonesian sources - I would not put any credos to either the BBC or google on this subject in the first place SatuSuro 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Another one of these earthquakes without historical significance. At the very least, merge all the Banda Sea earthquakes articles onto just one. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the possibility of 'without historical significance' being simply not having enough information in the usual sources to prove either way is no reason for deletion SatuSuro 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I mean. Earthquakes like this happen everyday and everywhere. Diego Grez (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying - the problem is just because and afd comes along does not mean that the nominator or the fellow afd conversationsists can actually understand whether there was a significant impact or not as the very basis of the material as presented by the sources - in some cases the actual tectonic behaviour in the banda sea may well have long lasting effect and be of significance - some simple deletion on wikipedia does not prove 'anything' as to the event or its impact SatuSuro 00:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. There are plenty of other AfD'dded articles that just after they were nominated, they were improved and their notability was asserted. But I can't find anything to prove this wrong, nominator said there was no damage or injuries in the area, and they weren't, doing a quick lookup. Diego Grez (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  —SatuSuro 00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested above of just delete, note that the maximum felt intensity was only V on the Mercalli intensity scale, due to the 201 km focal depth. I searched on Google scholar to see if there were any scientific papers discussing this or the other Banda Sea 'quakes, but failed to find anything. Mikenorton (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it is just another news item about an earthquake. No evidence of lasting impact and no injuries, deaths or damage. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  11:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep! The Sunda-Banda arc earthquakes are not "just another earthquake" or "every earthquake" or even "non-notable" earthquakes. These earthquakes are in the news, even when they don't cause damage, and they make headlines, even when earthquakes of similar magnitude in less remote areas don't, because of the probable mechanism of the earthquake and the possibility that these deep earthquakes in this tectonically complex region are evidence of damage and offset to the subducting plate. --KMLP (talk) 2:27 pm, Today (UTC−7)
 * Did you take note of WP:NOTNEWS stating, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion?" — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that. If something is in the news, it is not qualified for inclusion in wikipedia? That doesn't seem to make sense, but it also is not related to my points, as I don't weigh scientific noteworthiness based on news articles. The earthquake is in the news because it's geologically notable, not vice versa. But, that something is scientifically notable, then makes the news, doesn't lead to it is not notable enough for wikipedia because it's in the news. Simply too convoluted to handle. I've said my piece. --KMLP (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete per above. --Avenue (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If there were proof of any effects from this quake, it could be notable. Could. As there aren't, it's a bit of non-news for Wikipedia. It'll probably be listed at WikiNews (never been there, so couldn't really say what they do). But, as someone said above, there are loads of earthquakes and the intensity level is no indicator of actual results. A low intensity quake close under Mexico City would be far more dangerous than a high intensity quake 120 km from Tokyo. Peridon (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Content, though it may not need its own article, put it where it makes most sense.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:48, 16 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.