Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of earthquakes by death toll in 1901-1910


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

List of earthquakes by death toll in 1901-1910

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not necessary. We just went through this with another one-off list. I find that the timing on this is nothing short of incredible. The article listed below was deleted very recently (09:32, 10 October 2015‎):


 * Articles for deletion/List of earthquakes in the 2010s by death toll - result: deleted

Anyway, these types of articles are redundant as we have lists for individual years. These lists include some details on deaths and they'll do just fine; we don't need list articles dedicated to the topic. I also find that the topic is a little less than encyclopedic.


 * List of earthquakes in 1900
 * List of earthquakes in 1901
 * List of earthquakes in 1902
 * List of earthquakes in 1903
 * List of earthquakes in 1904
 * List of earthquakes in 1905
 * List of earthquakes in 1906
 * List of earthquakes in 1907
 * List of earthquakes in 1908
 * List of earthquakes in 1909
 * List of earthquakes in 1910

Dawnseeker2000 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I can understand wanting to see this information on a single page, but it seems to me that this is something we should try to solve via WikiData -- different views of the same information. Making them into articles doesn't make sense because it means that edits need to be done in more than one place and the articles are very likely to get out of sync. LaMona (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and be vigilant for similar incarnations. In addition to the redundancy already mentioned, this seems like stats for the sake of stats (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK), not an encyclopedic list. If people want to mine and recombine the data in Lists of earthquakes for their own private analyses or reports, let them do that on their own spreadsheets; it is not the place of Wikipedia to host arbitrary collections of data for the event that some geology student might find it convenient. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to meet the definition of WP:LISTCRUFT.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2015 (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.