Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Biobío earthquakes


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Biobío earthquakes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnotable, "run of the mill" type earthquakes. Three have occurred, but nothing in the article indicates that it is a notable event. None of the three caused any major property damage and no casualties. None of the three had any significant coverage of it beyond the usual initial news blips when they occurred, if that. Prod removed with note that "subject is notable" not no notability shown nor significant coverage added. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I was the creator of this article, but I now think it isn't notable. Justmeagain83 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * DeleteSeems to be just another earthquake.Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete These quakes are more than likely part of the aftershock sequence to the 8.8 in February (within the aftershock zone and same mechanism). Any info on significant aftershocks should be added to the 2010 Chile earthquake article. RapidR (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under G7, "Author requests deletion". Mandsford (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOTPAPER. The concern should be whether the article is verifiable, and it is. This is not like a single-event newstory that is just a blip on page seven. If a geographical region has a history of earthquakes, even if just one, is noteworthy. I want to know which regions of the world are stable or otherwise. This article, and others like it, are the starting point of what may become a comprehensive collection of earthquakes. I suggest that this earthquake article, and others like it, be organized in a way similar to articles on asteroids which keeps the stubs on minor asteroids, but also keeps lists and larger articles for other notable asteroids. There is no need to delete this article as it adds to wikipwdia's value as an on-line resource of encyclodedic information. Vanruvan (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability does not equal notability. How does it add to value as an encyclopedia to have random, unnotable topics included? If that were the case, we would not have notability guidelines at all. But we do, and this fails it. A single earthquake is NOT noteworthy, and if you want to know about a region's geographic stability as a whole, you would check that region's article, not go hunting around for every little earthquake. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Hunting around" will not be an issue. Wikipedia editors have demonstrated that they are very capable at building useful links, lists and other types of methods to aid the navigation through wikipedia's millions of articles. It will be no different for the organization of articles on earthquakes. Vanruvan (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep All earthquakes are notable by rule of common sense. This is what should be in an encyclopedia.  And of course, if you don't want to think for yourself, but just let it be notable if someone in the media decided it was worth mentioning, you can obviously find all earthquakes mentioned in the news. Here  are 10 results in English, through Google news search.  The language spoken by the people in that area, will be one you can search for, for additional coverage, if that isn't enough to convince you.   D r e a m Focus  13:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you are mistaken Thank you for the lecture on common sense and people who don't want to think for themselves, but you (and other people who think that this is "wide coverage") should look at some of those "10 results in English" to see if they really are discussing this minor event that happened on March 15. Articles dated February 27, March 1, March 4, March 5, etc. are not going to be about something that happened on March 15.  In fact, out of those ten results, nine of them have nothing to do with what's being discussed here, and only one of them, a Chilean news source  mentions it, and even at that, it's only a couple of sentences at the bottom of the page.  The other nine sources are about the 2010 Chile earthquake of February 27 that killed hundreds of people.  Most of us do not subscribe to the rule that all earthquakes are equally notable, because they are not equally destructive.  Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Wide coverage of a notable event.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not very wide coverage, as it turns out. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete Not a speedy, because others advocate keep, but as the search above showed, this received almost no coverage at all, even in Chile, where the deadly (nearly 500 people killed) earthquake that struck two weeks earlier. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of earthquakes in Chile. Not much coverage can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The earthquake was certainly well covered in Chile. Perhaps the US news services have not fully covered it, but that does not mean it is not notable. There are other countries in this world - just because it wasn't reported in the US doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Vanruvan (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then see if you can come up with some sources. It's just as easy to find an online Chilean news service as it is to find a US news service.  If you prove what you say by providing some Spanish language sources about the "terremoto" of 15 de Marzo (3 or 4 would be OK), then I would certainly reconsider.  Start at El Mercurio which is the Santiago newspaper online, and see what you can find from after "15 de Marzo".  Over in Argentina, there's La Nacion.  However, I doubt you'll find more than passing mention.  Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage found to establish notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or redirect.  OK...  is datelined 26 March.  is about the 15 March quake. I did a 'news' search on the individual word in the title, and these were the only hits in the first 8 pages.  OTOH, I didn't go further than 8 pages, and, understandably, there is a lot more coverage of the original super quake.  I suspect that more coverage, likely enough to be 'significant' is out there.  David V Houston (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, how is a single news article from the time of the second quake mentioned in this artice, one in eight pages of results, enough to make you feel the topic is now notable. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:13, 9 May 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.