Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthquake history in Custer County, Greeley County, Howard County and Valley County, Nebraska USA 1867 to 2012


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 12:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake history in Custer County, Greeley County, Howard County and Valley County, Nebraska USA 1867 to 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Finally had some time this weekend to catch up on some editing and was searching for "global digital seismograph network" and came across this. The long and highly-specific title grabbed my attention. The article discusses slight to moderate earthquakes of these four counties in Nebraska.

The largest of the earthquakes that are listed in the article is the event on November 15, 1877, and it looks to be described accurately, compared with the earthquake catalog that I have, but it might not qualify for a stand alone article based on our notability guidelines. Some of the other events that are mentioned in the article are too minor to be listed in my list.

From there, the problems develop further, with poorly sourced discussions of earthquake prediction, sleeping prophets, and reincarnation, among other things

This article does mention the Humboldt Fault, but I wouldn't want to redirect this title there. It's not a likely search item. If any of these moderate events are linked to that fault, that would be the article to discuss them on, but not like this. I don't think this is salvageable. Dawnseeker2000  23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Absurdly specific and yet also meandering.  Even if the other problems didn't exist, it would still need to be rewritten from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ninja. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2014 (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.