Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Andaman Islands 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2009 Andaman Islands earthquake
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am renominating this article for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. This article is not of lasting significance or nobility. There were no deaths or injuries, but only "minor damages to buildings." This article is just another news report. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the all-but-unanimous outcome and sound analysis in the initial AFD discussion, which closed fewer than 90 days ago. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If it was notable 90 days ago, it's still notable now (notability is not temporay). Meets WP:GNG with the sources.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion at 1st AfD. and please do not re nominate without any NEW persuasive reasoning.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact is, there is no lasting significance; no deaths, damage, or injuries. What makes this remotely significant is its high magnitude, but that alone should not determine whether an earthquake is notable. Unlike the Haitian earthquake, earlier this year, there's no tragedy, there's nothing left by the earthquake, except memories of its occurrence and a few reports. Earthquakes are routinely reported by wire services. As you can see from the USGS map, the shaking caused by the 'quake was light in most areas, save one where it strong and about two where it was moderate. — Mike moral  ♪♫  00:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and you think a reader researching earthquakes in that area 10 years from now would not be interested in this event ?? just because you personally think that this has no lasting impact or importance does not mean everyone else feels the same.  notability is inherently subjective.  their is no "notability meter" we can plug in and get an accurate reading everytime so we have to rely on what the consensus is.--Wikireader41 (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment An earthquake researcher will always have geological institutions at his or her own side. The United States Geological Survey have an earthquake search feature, starting from 1994, it seems. Canadian researchers can use the Canadian Earthquake Database, the California Geological Survey offers a database of Californian earthquakes, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration offers a database of earthquakes significant to geographers and researches. As a side note, the NOAA's database would not have this Andaman earthquake; it states as it's criteria for determining significant earthquakes as more than 7.5 magnitude, more than US$1 million in damage, ten or more deaths, Modified Mercalli Intensity X or greater, or the 'quake generated a tsunami, only one of these true. Back to my original argument, an earthquake researcher would not use Wikipedia as his or her source but rather one of the many institutions for the research of such occurrences. An earthquake to be notable, should cause damage and/or human injury and death. — Mike moral  ♪♫  03:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * yes but we want WP to be the best online resource that people have whether they are researching earthquakes or floods etc. for most topics with articles on WP just Googling will provide oodles of info.  should we just shut down WP ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive listing of all events that have occurred. Wikipedia has notability criteria for a reason. Anything newsworthy is not necessarily noteworthy. There are certain things Wikinews is not and according to that list, Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it a news agency. News articles are reserved for inclusion on sister project Wikinews. There are thousands of earthquakes each day. Should we just include an article for each earthquake from now on? Seems rather pointless when we have those aforementioned sources for geological studies. The Unites States Geological Survey is also a source for flood information. — Mike moral  ♪♫  02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all earthquakes. This one was 7.5 Richter which is pretty rare and notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.  see Oakshade's comments below--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but when did I claim to be a a geological expert, because Oakshade's comments don't seem to apply to me. You've restated what you have already said, by the way. And again, I point out the numerous resources available to researchers. Non-major earthquakes do not deserve a place in an encyclopedia. — Mike moral  ♪♫  04:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. 7.5 is an extremely strong earthquake.  There is no WP:MUSTBEDEATHS guideline in our notability standards.--Oakshade (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:GNG.  KuwarOnline  Talk''' 06:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete It was notable once, probably that day, but not anymore. Earthquakes happen every day, and not many of them are notable. It is strong, but didn't cause damage and has no historical significance. And Wikipedia is not the news, use Wikinews for that. Diego Grez (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you a geophysicist or seismologist (presumably with the credentials) and have determined that this large seismic event is totally irrelevant to the study, recording and analysis of tectonics, geology and prediction of future activity, particularly in the Indian Plate? If so, please send your research and findings to various research institutions such as the Geological Survey of India, United States Geological Survey and Geoscience Australia, just to name a few so they won't have to spend valuable time and resources studying this event.  They will be very interested in your work.  I would also congratulate you on achieving such vast scientific knowledge and insight at age 16. --Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep even the guy !voting strong delete concedes that it was notable at one time; and notability is not temporary, hence it's still notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: At present the article only has two sources, both from the day after the event. To meet WP:EVENT it needs to show lasting coverage. Does any exist, and if so can someone present it here? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 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.