Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bucharest 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. Nja 247 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 Bucharest earthquake

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Three reasons for deletion. First, Vrancea County lies on a fault line and earthquakes there happen routinely. Second, 5.3 isn't that big, and it was a magnitude 3-4 quake in the capital, Bucharest. Third, according to this and this, there were no material damages or injuries. Yes, it made the local news (naturally), but it's hardly worth an encyclopedia article for every relatively minor tremor along the Vrancea fault. Biruitorul Talk 19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * San Francisco also lies on a fault and earthquakes happen there routinely. The other arguments may be correct. DGG (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Recentism at its worst. Nominator is correct that a 5.3 magnitude quake is not really notable; in fact, there have been four larger (and still non-notable tremors this month  at 6.3, 6.6, 6.7, 6.9.  Mandsford (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Magnitude alone isn't a criterion for inclusion or non-inclusion. See the 1960 Agadir earthquake, which was a 5.7. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, you are correct, and I could have phrased that better. The 1960 earthquake that Blanchard refers to killed more than 15,000 people.  I'm the last person who would exclude an event on the basis of a measurement (such as "I require at least 20 deaths for a plane crash").  Thanks for setting that straight. Mandsford (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence so far that this is more than trivial. Looie496 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As far as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't have (and shouldn't have) an article on the 6.3 earthquake that shook Montreal, Boston, and New York City in 1988, which did no damage except around its epicenter in central Quebec. This one seems to be even less memorable. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this does turn out to have any notability then the title should be changed - the epicentre was a long way from Bucharest. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The epicenter of the 1977 Bucharest earthquake and of the 1940 Bucharest earthquake - the two modern ones that really matter - were in the same place, but the sources primarily call them by that name. - Biruitorul Talk 05:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Recentist trivia of what isn't by any accounts a notable event. Incidentally, I've felt it and, thank goodness, it was not a notable occurrence. Dahn (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless Wikipedia wants to have 800 articles per year dealing with earthquakes that have insignificant effects, this article must be deleted. Kostja (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd have to agree that the article fails to assert that the event was notable -- it even says "no damage or injuries occurred".  Thunderstorms would be more notable.  Matt (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2009 (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.