Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 New Mexico 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. If anyone wants the text to created the discussed article about Earthquakes in New Mexico as a general subject, just ask. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 New Mexico earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article should be deleted. I don't think it passes Wikipedia Notability requirements. If every little earthquake had its own article there would be millions of them. I could see maybe an article called: "Earthquakes in New Mexico". And this one listed on that page, as well as the top earthquakes in NM history, but I can't see a separate article, it is a waste. Besides, what if there was a really big one later, this is also not a good way to name an article before 2010 has ended. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are dozens of magnitude 4.x earthquakes a day worldwide. Would only be notable in extreme circumstances, e.g. if it caused disproportionate damage or number of deaths. dramatic (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. When you can't find a source other than USGS about an individual earthquake, it just doesn't warrant coverage in Wikipedia. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 07:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this is basically a minor event compared to such happenings as the Haiti earthquake, and seems rather WP:INDISCRIMINATE worthy because of its lack of notability and the frequency of occurrence of 4.0 earthquakes. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of "things that happened." Appears to fail WP:N. Did it kill people or destroy buildings? Did it get continuing press coverage of the recovery efforts and refugee camps? Did it lead to new building codes? Were books written about it? A news article said it was "a relatively small earthquake" in "a remote area" with "no reports of injuries or damage" and that it was "not extraordinary by any stretch." Edison (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete One of many new earthquake articles created by the same person in March.  With the exception of the 2010 Chile earthquake that killed more than 500 people and is hidden under "1st Biobío (Chile)" in the template, I don't think that any other quake that month was important.  Mandsford 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the article's creator. Earthquakes, especially ones of magnitude 4 or greater, are rare in New Mexico, so this is fairly significant. CNN also had some coverage of this earthquake.Av9 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support a general article about earthquakes in the area-- I think that we had recent deletions on quakes in Texas and Oklahoma, and I'm not sure how close the epicenters of those three events would be to the common point that they share in the Rita Blanca National Grassland.  Even the info on the deleted pages could be resurrected.  I'm hoping that the persons most familiar with quakes will be able to identify the world's various zones in order to organize a useful method of tracking these events.  Mandsford 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS — Mike moral  ♪♫  03:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina  15:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. AlexHOUSE (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS... it's also snowing. 2 says you, says two 18:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I certainly agree with most here, that an earthquake this minor is not worthy of an article, no matter where it occurs. However, I recently lost that argument at this AFD discussion, where an earthquake of only 2.7 (yes, 2.7!) was kept. We have got to get some standards set up for earthquakes or the place will be flooded with articles about totally unimportant quakes. The recent flood of stories about earthquakes is being discussed here: WikiProject Earthquakes. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will re-AfD that article once the new set of Earthquake guidelines gain consensus. Aditya Ex Machina  07:01, 26 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.