Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Peru 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. BJ Talk 19:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Peru earthquake

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

Peru has had at least 4 earthquakes of around this size this year already, and this one is non-notable because it occurred at a depth of 200 km. Basically it means the shaking felt on the ground was not as significant as it would be if it was a shallow quake. So far only 'minor' damage has been reported, and since Peru has a long history of deadly earthquakes, this one would meet the criteria for WP:RECENT. RapidR (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As I disagree with WP:RECENT and this article could be useful in the future. I see no reason to delete  SparksBoy (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It could affect over 700 000 people, ie. have actual real-life effect! Unlike the gazillion pop-idol or 2nd rate footballer articles. Also, if wikipedia is going to keep and maintain non-physical-event articles with unclear evidence of causes and effects with source only in newsarticles referring to gov pr, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_cyber_attacks - then this article deserves keeping, too. And no - this is NOT a case of WP:RECENT as this article is lucid and concise. Perhaps merge the articles on Peru earthquakes. Casimirpo (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Peru is frequently hit by earthquakes of this size (once every couple of months or so), and they all cause panic and affect many hundreds of thousands of people, but 'people were affected' just simply means that people felt some of the shaking, it doesn't have to mean they were all injured or became homeless as a result. You could have a big thunderstorm that affects 5 million people (or the amount of people that noticed the rain) but it doesn't make it notable. So far this year there have been 4 earthquakes of similar size in Peru: A 5.8 on 2nd Feb, 6.1 on 9 Feb , 6.2 on 15 Feb , 5.8 on 26 March , and they all 'affected' lots of people, so I don't know whats notable about this one. RapidR (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Its hard to say if its notable when its just happened and theres very few sources available at this time regarding it. I would like to see if any come to light about its impact before deleting it. Especially that it might just be remade shortly. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh, this is yesterday's news. I'm not sure where it was said that this was a 6.1 quake, but it was a 5.3  with "no immediate reports of damage or injury".  Maybe you can get some sympathy from the admin who thought the July 2006 Sulawesi earthquake was big stuff.  Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N ("Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability"). I see no evidence that coverage continued beyond a short burst. - Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:N-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete the the gazillion pop-idol or 2nd rate footballer articles too :))-- TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 11:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, too short, only 3 sentences. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 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.