Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Vancouver 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Vancouver earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. The only source I can find gives the magnitude as a rather tame 3.2, and, with no injuries or damage, notability is not attained. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 20:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Coquitlam ain't Vancouver, and in Vancouver, I didn't even feel the earth move under my feet. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Every earthquake that occurs at all does not automatically get its own standalone article just to assert that it occurred — for a Wikipedia article to be justified or warranted, some properly sourced evidence of significance (e.g. property damage, loss of life, long-term effects, and on and so forth) would need to be shown. But there's no evidence of any significance here, as witness the fact that there's been no significant coverage — even on a Google search, I find a couple of "this just happened" blurbs but no evidence of the coverage extending past the hour, let alone the day, of the event, which means nothing can be added to beef this up. There was a minor earthquake in my hometown a couple of weeks ago, too, but nothing happened that would get it an article in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails EVENT.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WikiProject_Earthquakes/notability_guidelines. *rant* even if "WikiProjects are all a bunch of fanboy inclusionists", it would be nice to at least acknowledge the existence of specific notability indications when they exist */end rant* Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether these guidelines are fully officially adopted or not, they do provide a rational threshold. This article is well below the level of encyclopedic interest. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2016 (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.