Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Banda Sea 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Banda Sea earthquake

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable earthquake causing no damage or injuries. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We just can't have an article for every single earthquake. We have to select the most notable ones, not write about one as soon as they appear on the USGS RSS feed. Diego Grez (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't come close to meeting the proposed 'Notability guidelines for earthquake articles on Wikipedia'. Mikenorton (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is just another news item about an earthquake. No evidence of lasting impact and no injuries, deaths or damage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! The Sunda-Banda arc earthquakes are not "just another earthquake" or "every earthquake" or even "non-notable" earthquakes. These earthquakes are in the news, even when they don't cause damage, and they make headlines, even when earthquakes of similar magnitude in less remote areas don't, because of the probable mechanism of the earthquake and the possibility that these deep earthquakes in this tectonically complex region are evidence of damage and offset to the subducting plate. --KMLP (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we just can't have an article on every earthquake just because they appeared in the news... --Diego Grez (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say we could or should. I said this article is in the news because it is notable due to its geology not that we should have an article because it's in the news. --KMLP (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Chile's geography is important too. If I recall correctly, there was a strong earthquake (magnitude 5.9) on September 29, and it got significant coverage on reliable sources such as the BBC. But it hasn't its own article. Why should this one? --Diego Grez (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I didn't say it should be kept because it's in the news, I said it's notable because of its geological significance and uniqueness, so I'm not following your continued argument about newsworthiness of this or other earthquakes. Geological science is not constrained to studying what the news reports should or should not be researched. If this Chilean earthquake has the potential to crack subducted lithosphere or do something truly powerful on a geological scale, it also might merit its own article. Just because it doesn't have one, doesn't mean it doesn't merit one. --KMLP (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mikenorton and others. --Avenue (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the earthquake articles to geology of the Banda Sea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 11 October 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.