Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jinghe 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Jinghe earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of notability Skycycle (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Wykx  (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait and see. According to the article we don't know yet if there are casualties. I found the earthquake notability guidelines and it is notable if there are any directly attributable deaths. A 6.6 earthquake very well could have caused casualties, and very well could have not done so. We just don't know yet, and won't until the casualty report has been released. CJK09 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a little too early to tell just now, but this earthquake only happened like a day and a half ago. We don't have casualty reports yet, but current news indicates collapsed buildings on the order of hundreds, damaged structures on the order of thousands, and displaced people on the order of ten thousand. I don't know if it quite meets WP:NEARTHQUAKE or WP:EVENTCRITERIA at the moment, but I think it will by the end of this AfD. Further, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this earthquake doesn't seem any less notable than, say, the 2017 Lesbos earthquake or the 2017 Botswana earthquake. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that it has already been 2 days - China is quite good with updating information, as can be seen by opening the page for the 2017 Jiuzhaigou earthquake. The Lesbos quake had 1 casualty - though the article needs to be expanded for sure - while the Botswana quake was the 2nd largest ever recorded in the country, and the biggest one in decades, so not sure how we can draw comparisons there at all. Regardless, the article needs to be severely 'upgraded' to make any sense, perhaps with the Chinese sources mentioned above, since they contain a lot more information than we currently have featured. Skycycle (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the earthquake occurred less than one day after the Jiuzhaigou earthquake makes it interesting on its own, but it was almost 3000km distant and every indication is that the two events are unrelated. Fortunately I doubt there will be any deaths attributable to this earthquake. You are quite right that Chinese news agencies are typically pretty quick to promulgate information, and I agree that the article needs to be updated with more information from existing news sources, but contrast my only… like a day and a half with your already… 2 days for our variance of opinion on when this needs to happen. You are right to call me out on my comparisons with the Lesbos and Botswana earthquakes: that was a sloppy argument to make. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is an ongoing event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Although we don't have so much information, yet in recent days, it will be expanded. --Yejianfei (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks like after that last vote, it has been expanded to include several aftershocks as well. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article are sourced, there was aftershocks, this article totally real, not hoax --Builder8360 (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (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.