Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 New Britain 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 New Britain earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No fatalities, no significant injuries, no major damage, no lasting impact. Not a notable occurrence. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep This was a very powerful earthquake of 7.3 magnitude, which struck near land. Although there were no injuries or fatalities as a result of this earthquake, news sources are now reporting some building damage. The total damage is still said to be not yet known. Justmeagain83 (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it's a quake above magnitude 7.0 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - +7.0 is an earthquake I think we can keep, as also other earthquakes like this are kept.  Kubek15  write / sign 10:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: The earthquake in Washington DC days before this one was also an event with "no fatalities, no significant injuries, no major damage, no lasting impact" with a magnitude less than 4. Why has it not been nominated for deletion? Hope it's not because things are "naturally" more important and deserve more attention in some new "middle kingdom"! Qrfqr (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it existed, which is why I haven't nominated it for deletion! Now i do, I might just nominate it later. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Powerful enough to be kept. Qrfqr (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This earthquake caused some damage, and is the strongest earthquake in both New Britain and all of Papua New Guinea so far this year. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The line for earthquake notability should be 7.0. A 7.0 earthquake is newsworthy and worth documenting for history. That's a normative statement, but it would eliminate many of these earthquake articles and challenges if that was the line in the sand. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was only a 6.9 on the MMS scale. The 1995 Kobe earthquake was only 6.8 on the MMS scale. Both of these are notable, yes? Kate (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. No rule of thumb is perfect, but 7.0 gets close. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * keep, Big Quake nuff said... Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 7.0 earthquake clearly notable. I think damage is a poor criteria for assessing earthquake notability. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Diego Grez  what's up?  01:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Well, mag 7.0+ and an earthquake doublet/triplet: keep! There were actually four; 7.3, 7.6, 7.4, 6.5 on the moment magnitude with intensities VI, VII, VII, V. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ 173.49.140.141 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong earthquakes - see 2010 Mindanao earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep This earthquake just reaches the proposed guidelines for notability set out at WikiProject:Earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 19:26, 26 July 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.