Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Ilocos 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) 00:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Ilocos earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

per WP:NOTNEWS. Even the article itself plays down the effects. RapidR (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a bad article, but the event is marginal. There are 800 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0-5.9 (assuming Richter?) in the world each year. Minor damage, no casualties, therefore indeed only a minor news event. GregorB (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another earthquake article created soon after the event. This one happened two days after the 2010 Mindoro earthquake, which appears similarly non-notable, but is not nominated.  It was barely acknowledged when it happened, and, not surprisingly not even a week or a month later .  Unfortunately, there is no organization, as of yet, for a reasonable method of saving earthquake information, and it comes down to an "all or nothing" proposition every time, there being no in-between choice.  The usual sequence of events is that the earth shakes somewhere; the United States Geological Survey adds the information to the list; a Wikipedia contributor sees an opportunity to create an article about the event; it gets nominated for deletion and-- as of late-- it gets deleted.  As a review of Category:21st-century earthquakes shows, the number of WP:RECENT articles has steadily increased.  Four in 2004, 12 in '05, 16 in '06, '21 in '07, 24 in '08, 31 in '09 and-- for the first half of 2010 so far-- forty-six!  It would be even more that, but we've had six of the articles called "2010 _____ earthquake" deleted so far, with tremors in the Andaman Islands, Biobío (in March, after the February killer quake in Chile), Oklahoma, Pichilemu, South Texas and most recently Venezuela.   Granted, this will still be mentioned on the 2010 earthquakes page, but a page for earthquakes in a particular region would be more of a contribution to knowledge.  I'm afraid that most all-or-nothing fights are going to end with "nothing".  Mandsford 20:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the past deletion outcomes have been to delete earthquakes smaller than 6 on the Richter scale, or its equivalent in damage. A smaller earthquake might be notable, if say, a notable monument or building were damaged, but this is not the case here. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wow, "only pipes may have been affected". This is practically coming down to writing articles about trees falling in the forest without anyone around to notice. WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not an earthquake directory.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Mike moral  ♪♫  03:06, 20 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.