Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Venezuela earthquake (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Venezuela earthquake
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails to assert historical significance of the event and WP:NOTNEWS certainly applies and possibly fails WP:EVENT. Article is generally written like a news story. Mike moral  ♪♫  01:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The purpose of WP is to have articles for people to read and learn about a general topic, not just to record events as they happen. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable coverage of a notable event.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I thank all inclusionists for their struggle in keeping this article alive, but I have got to admit that the article itself deserves no place in Wikipedia for all the aforementioned reasons in its first nomination. When I first created the article I expected some sort of aftermath, once nothing happened I see no reason to keep it here. Krenakarore (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of earthquakes, and we're not here to record current events as they happen. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Earthquake with minimal damage and no lasting impact.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not surprisingly, there are no mentions of this event a few months after it happened. When it first did occur, there were quite a few people who took the approach that "it's in the news right now, so it must be notable", but the test of Wikipedia notability is whether it is likely to have historical significance.  For anyone who wasn't sure about that in January, we now have the benefit of four months passing.  Not a chance in hell that I would suggest merging this crap to anywhere else, given the "Merge discussions can take place on the talk page of the article if necessary" closure of the last article.  Mandsford (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with above rationales. Hasn't received enough long-term mention in reliable sources and arguably fails notability guidelines. Tempodivalse   [talk]  18:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No Opinion, but historical significance is certainly not required. How many Pokemon have historical significance?  Googlemeister (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:POKEMON :P --Savonneux (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add that, by "historical significance" (which is drawn from WP:EVENT) doesn't require that something has to be a turning point in history, but it does require some indication that it is, or is likely to be, referred to long after the fact. Much of what is "breaking news" on CNN and FOX is going to be forgotten after it's no longer news.  When an event has just happened, then deciding whether it's likely to be referred in the future is a judgment call based on the observer's experiences.  A few months later, it's lasting impact can be objectively measured.  Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge pertinent information to 2010 earthquakes and delete article.--Savonneux (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NOTNEWS  Traxs 7   (Talk) 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my original AFD nomination. No lasting significance. RapidR (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to have received international press attention. Everyking (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the day that it happened, sure, which is why we have the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Mandsford (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an earthquake significant enough to receive international news coverage. Do you think that qualifies as "routine"? Everyking (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is routine coverage. A good analogy would be that when a car bomb is exploded somewhere in the world, it gets acknowledged in other nations; and yet, most car bombings aren't mentioned more than a day after they happened.  Those that do get mentioned later are of such magnitude that there are reminders of them weeks, months and years later.  I'd add that this didn't get "coverage", in the sense that a reporter was sent to "cover" the story, but rather acknowledgment in the form of passing along statements from seismological services.  As I've said in other discussions, I think that the information on a quake should be saved somewhere, but not in its own individual article.  I still hold out hope that the people who follow seismology will organize a compromise method for memorializing events in a different from, such as by region (for instance, and article called "Earthquakes in Venezuela").  The current system of trying to save these as individual articles and then running them past the critics is definitely NOT working.  They're getting clobbered out there!


 * Articles for deletion/2010 Andaman Islands earthquake deleted
 * Articles for deletion/2010 Biobío earthquakes deleted
 * Articles for deletion/2010 Oklahoma earthquake deleted
 * Articles for deletion/2010 Illinois earthquake (2nd nomination) redirected
 * Articles for deletion/May 2010 Pichilemu earthquake deleted
 * Articles for deletion/2010 South Texas earthquake deleted
 * I have a feeling that the list is going to expand. Time to think outside the infobox. Mandsford (talk) Mandsford 12:28, 13 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.