Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Venezuela 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2009 Venezuela earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NOTNEWS. There was some damage and a few injured people, but no deaths. — Mike moral  ♪♫  02:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC) This out of place from my talk page...
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions.  -- — Mike  moral  ♪♫  02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails the Rule of 7. Carrite (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Although some quakes of less than 7.0 can establish notability under WP:GNG, this one got almost no coverage after a few days. I say "almost no coverage" because there's this, but I wouldn't consider it more than a mention.  Mandsford 14:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, the earthquake is not notable, but what is "the rule of 7" that Carrite mentions above, so, this article (magnitude 6.9) should be deleted per your rule. Certain Italy earthquake that almost destroyed a city, of magnitude 6,3-6,4 should be deleted too. Excuse me, but that's awkward. It depends on if the earthquake is notable, or not. If it causes major damage or casualties, etc. Diego Grez (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have seen many of your keep/delete votes on earthquakes articles, that point out to a "rule of [moment magnitude] 7". That an earthquake reaches a magnitude 7 or higher does not make it inherently notable, the historical legacy does. There are plenty of earthquakes that are magnitude 5, 6, such as 2010 Pichilemu earthquake (magnitude 6.9), but they are notable because of the damage, or historical value they have. So, please disregard this stupid rule of the magnitude 7. Diego Grez (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The rule of 7 may be "stupid," I will give you that, but it beats the alternative to an unending series of articles, challenged articles, debates, and conflict over whether to include or not include an earthquake. 7.0 quakes are sufficiently rare to be notable and it's a nice line in the stand that can be drawn to preempt the unproductive bickering between earthquake fans (for lack of a better word) and their deletionist foes. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 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.