Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Skåne County earthquake (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is clear that this should be kept in some form. Whether or not that's at its current title or merged/renamed into a new Earthquakes in Sweden article is not an issue for AfD. The Bushranger One ping only 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

2008 Skåne County earthquake
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

this earthquake had no deaths and was hardly reported outside of Sweden. No long term coverage either. Looking at Earthquakes in 2008, all the earthquakes on this list are above 5.0 with the exception of one which had a fatality. There is consensus that 5.0 is the usual minimum for a mention in WP unless there are deaths. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Earthquakes_in_2009 contains no earthquakes less than 5.0. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The earthquake had no effect except that people felt a shaking. No fatalities and not even material damages reported. And as LibStar says; it falls below the standard threshold of 5.0 on Richers scale for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Maybe it might be mentioned briefly in some geology articles related to Sweden/Skåne, but I don't think we need a formal merger. Iselilja (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - In the context of an earthquake in Sweden which is extremely. Makes it notable. Even if it "falls below the threshold of 5.0 in the Richers scale". Had the earthquake happened in Japan I would have agreed. But not this time.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * you've inventing your own criterion for notability. It still doesn't meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Im not inventing anything. I am telling my personal opinion on an AfD. And frankly you comment on anyones rationale who isnt in line with yours that they "are wrong" and you should let an AfD run its course as your comments make no impact on the final result anyway. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In any AfD, when arguing keep you should relate to notability criterion or established consensus, otherwise it's a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 
 * Weak keep. It has reasonably solid sources, and is an earthquake of a magnitude unusual for the region (a claim that's also sourced), which seems enough for at least a short verifiable article. Which earthquakes merit an article is a tricky question, but imo a rigid Richter-scale threshold for earthquakes doesn't make much sense, since some 4.x earthquakes are unusual and have sources discussing them, while some 5.x earthquakes aren't and don't. --Delirium (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Although, looking at the discussion of the previous nomination, I do like one of the proposed solutions there: create an Earthquakes in Sweden article and merge this. --Delirium (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a good solution. But lets wait and see how this AfD discussion end. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 12:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/Rename by Delirium's reasoning. It's also better structurally. Now is the time to decide on the fate of this article. If it gets deleted, it will be harder to do this. - Sidelight 12 Talk 03:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge/Rename. This earthquake was indeed exceptional by Swedish standards (I was personally one of those who got scared as hell by it) and thus merits mentioning, at least as part of a bigger article. /FredrikT (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- meets WP:GNG and WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines (i.e., an unusual event in an area of low seismic activity, and covered in the GEUS scientific journal). If an Earthquakes in Sweden article is created, it would be appropriate for this text to merged and the article name redirected to there. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2014 (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.