Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Sanriku Japan 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 keep. WjBscribe 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Sanriku Japan Earthquake

Minor earthquake, there are thousands a year, created this article when I was a n00b, should have known better. WP:NOT news, prod removed Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 17:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Multiple examples of independent coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 22:18 14 September 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwern (talk • contribs)
  • All minor earthquakes get significant coverage, but only for a day until all was forgotten, wikipedia is not news Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep either as it is or rename and expand the subject to earthquakes in the Sanriku area, for which it's a great start. Fg2 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete From the article: "The earthquake was centered in the Pacific Ocean about 330 miles east-northeast of Tokyo about 24 miles below the surface. There were no immediate reports of casualties." Should we have an article about every tremor that causes no damage and no casualties? The author of this one felt compelled to add a list of notable earthquakes, not as "a great start" (as Fg2 suggests), but more like sensing (correctly) that this quake was of little interest. The article, not surprisingly, was created on November 15, 2005, when it was "breaking news". Nearly two years later, it's no longer earthshaking. Mandsford 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Although a significant earthquake, it is not enough for an individual article (like not every Indonesia earthquake over 7 and even 8) have articles not to mention nobody was killed. It can be covered in Japan-related articles though.JForget 23:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because well-referenced earthquake. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it well-referenced, most of the references talk about the area history, which could be merged to an article about Earthquakes in Japan this one is too minor for an article and not much in references, having references isn't a reason for keeping an article Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwern. However, I would also support expanding the article to chronicle significant earthquakes in the Sanriku area which are not significant enough to have their own articles should it be determined that this one is not notable enough by itself. With that in mind, any earthquake with a magnitude of 6.9 is significant and notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• It's alot of major earthquakes every year, not really notable Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've reworked the material into an article on seismic activity in the region. Given a new title, it would make a good start for an article on that new topic. Old versions remain available if preferred. Fg2 02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, Keep now but what title will be sutable for the article, also I prefer a general article on Earthquakes in Japan than one region. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:02, 17 September 2007 (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.