Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Vila Vanuatu earthquakes

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 15:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Port Vila Vanuatu earthquakes

)

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

Non notable earthquake; no damage. Diego talk 20:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a more detailed reason ? Diego talk 16:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user who proposed deletion of this article, Diego Grez, stated that the sole reason for the earthquake's lack of notability was "no damage". This is not the sole criterion upon which an earthquake is deemed to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

This article meets the [notability guideline] for [events] because there was widespread coverage of the earthquakes covered in diverse sources. A quick Google search shows that there are over 400 articles about these earthquakes, originating from various countries in various continents. Gfcvoice (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did they have a significant consequence? Most earthquakes which are felt in a large area are often reported my media from all around the world; that doesn't grants 'notability' IMO. Also, you can simply call me Diego; for a reason I'm only using my name in my signature. Diego talk 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the Port Vila earthquakes had significant consequence. However I will note that these two earthquakes (magnitude 7.1 and 7.0) were the largest earthquakes on the planet in August 2011. Even if there was not much damage, the magnitude suggests that they are notable. Also as noted above, there were numerous articles about the earthquakes in sources from many different countries. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude doesn't give automatical (not sure if that's an actual word) notability; and being the strongest tremor in X month and Y year certainly doesn't either. Diego talk 16:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the magnitude, combined with it being the biggest earthquake for August, combined with the hundreds of sources in various countries and continents are the reasons why this earthquake meets notability criteria. Gfcvoice (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An earthquake of magnitude 7.2 in Fox Islands, Alaska, the strongest in June 2011 according to the

same article you linked to, doesn't have its article, even when it was covered by several sources. Why? Because it didn't have significant consequence. This Vanuatu earthquake didn't have either, that's why it isn't notable. Being widely covered, being of certain magnitude and being the strongest quake of an X month doesn't guarantee notability. Diego talk 20:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree. The "widely covered" criteria comes straight from the Wikipedia general notability guideline and the notability guideline for events because there was widespread coverage of the earthquakes covered in diverse sources. A quick Google search shows that there are over 400 articles about these earthquakes, originating from various countries in various continents. Your discussion regarding the Alaska earthquake is not relevant to the discussion about the Port Vila earthquake article. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -
WP:INDEPTH. If widespread of coverage was all that was needed Christina Desforges would still have an article (view that AfD). Big earthquakes get reported all around the world, but they're just news unless they have a lasting impact.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The earthquake is notable as a significant geological event in 2011. Also, retaining the article can be beneficial as an encyclopedic reference regarding the event, and for the creation of new articles.Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per
WP:NOTNEWS. Earthquakes are common around the Pacific rim, this one had no major consequence of any sort.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I should add it could be mentioned in a list of earthquakes article, but there's nothing to write about in terms of a stand-alone article.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS, a spate of news articles at the time does not confer notability. We need sustained coverage and these earthquakes just didn't get any, or at least not enough for a stand-alone article. Big Dom 06:33, 10 September 2011 (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.