Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Andaman Islands 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. Shimeru (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Andaman Islands earthquake

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable, "run of the mill" type earthquake. no major property damage, no casualties, and no significant coverage of it beyond the usual initial news blip. Prod removed by User:Vanruvan with note of "remove dated prod - WP:NOTPAPER" which does not address any of the notability concerns. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad that nobody was hurt. It was a 6.8 undersea quake located 90 miles from the nearest land, and fortunately did not create a tsunami. Wikipedia has a lot of people who are interested in earthquakes, but who have never gotten together as a community to talk about criteria for distinguishing the notable from the non-notable, or to talk about a place to put information on those events that are not notable by themselves. As with WP:AIRCRASH, what happened was that a template was created that could be filled out for any event, with no regard to significance, much as we have a biographical template to plug in details about any person in the world. The existence of a template doesn't mean anything... other than that there once was an editor who created a template. If they ever get organized, the earthquake people should consider grouping events by region, so that we could have a page that's reserved for activity in the Bay of Bengal. The airline people got their house in order in 2009, and so can the earthquake people. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Relatively big earthquake but with no lasting impact.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the author of this article and I would like to request deletion. Justmeagain83 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTPAPER. The concern should be whether the article is verifiable, and it is. This is not like a single-event newstory that is just a blip on page seven. If a geographical region has a history of earthquakes, even if just one, is noteworthy. I want to know which regions of the world are stable or otherwise. This article, and others like it, are the starting point of what may become a comprehensive collection of earthquakes. I suggest that this earthquake article, and others like it, be organized in a way similar to articles on asteroids which keeps the stubs on minor asteroids, but also keeps lists and larger articles for other notable asteroids. There is no need to delete this article as it adds to wikipwdia's value as an on-line resource of encyclodedic information. Vanruvan (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it is notable if a geographical region has a history of earthquakes, and I'd support the creation of a page about seismic activity in the Bay of Bengal or however anyone wants to define the area. I wish that there was an earthquake project where people who are interested in such things can come to an agreement about how to organize them in a manner where the information doesn't keep getting deleted. The current system-- filling out the tired old infobox and then running each event by the critics-- clearly is not working. In addition, writing articles about the region, rather than the year the event happened, would offset the problem of recentism. I think people write individual shake articles only because there is no other place where the information can be mentioned. Other projects have been saved simply by "thinking outside the infobox". I have faith that somebody will lead the earthquake articles in a new direction. Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.