Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Ryukyu Islands 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Ryukyu Islands earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. "No injuries or casualties were reported, the only damage was a few pipes." Aditya Ex Machina 08:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Minor event. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm inclined to say that this one is more notable than most, it being in the 7.0-7.9 range and generating tsunami warnings, and being a fairly significant shake even in an earthquake-prone location like Japan. Overall, however, I'd prefer that these be grouped into pages specific to the region.  I think that by now, the earthquake contributors have learned that when one treats big news and little news as all being equal, articles about the really notable quakes are difficult to find.  Mandsford 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there was a list of earthquakes article to redirect this to, fine by me. But as it stands, simply reaching a specific number doesn't make it as notable to me as say a lesser strength one that had more of an impact. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This earthquake is already in the List of 21st century earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This was a magnitude 7.0 earthquake and also caused minor damage and a tsunami, albeit a small one. Justmeagain83 (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 6.0 and higher should be the cut off. Lower and it must prove it is important.  Higher and no additional proof Goldamania (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Earthquakes are geological phenomena regardless of their effect on human events, so the size is relevant.  The proposal of Earthquake notability|proposed was a good one, except that at magnitude 5.0, it set the boundary much lower than people would support. 7.0 on the other hand is clearly enough---there are only 18 or so a year at that level. I think it is good to have objective criteria in fields where that is possible, instead of relying on the chances of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quakes of 7.0 or greater should be automatic keepers. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, standard case of NOTNEWS. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete usual ring of fire shaking, notnews-- DA I (Δ) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No casualites, "a few pipes damaged", "no destructive threat". I definatley think this meets WP:NOTNEWS W a c k y Wace  talk 16:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT. No notable or lasting damage or impact. Magnitude should not be sufficient for notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. "No injuries or casualties were reported, the only damage was a few pipes." means this is instantly forgettable and WP:NOTNEWS. --DAJF (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unlike DGG, I think that the earthquake's effect on humans is not only relevant, but the critical question; indeed, outside of geologists, the human impact is all that matters to us, the rest is almanac information (the USGS has most of this info anyway). There's no need for pages on every incident, and the notability paradigm that says otherwise has the burden of explaining why that is. This is a good example. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I concur with DGG's comment regarding notability of quakes in this intensity range.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:44, 4 June 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.