Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Greece earthquake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per WP:N#TEMP. Nothing else forthcoming. KrakatoaKatie 06:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Greece earthquake

2008 Greece earthquake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No damages, nobody injured, one paragraph which doesn't say much. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Corvus cornixtalk 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Entry may be ok as a single line in something like Earthquakes in Greece but not exactly notable by itself. Pharmboy (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, plenty of sources to demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I see plenty of sources to prove it *happened*, but what exactly makes it notable? I don't think every earthquake is automatically notable, as earthquakes are pretty common. Pharmboy (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Press coverage to any significant degree (a few separate articles from separate news sources dealing with the subject in a non-trivial fashion) always indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the solution to "one paragraph which doesn't say much" is expanding it. And carnage is not what makes an article notable, but this thing. --Babedacus (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think Wikipedia should serve as a general guardian of human knowledge for future generations to explore. This makes every event notable, as long as it is a recorded event of human history. --Enkivos (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But wikipedia as policies, including WP:NOT#NEWS Delete Secret account 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • A news story by itself does not merit an article, but the fact that it was a news story does not detract from its established notability. --Babedacus (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Just because it's covered in the news for a day, doesn't mean that it deserves an article, WP:N looks for lasting notabilty, not just one event briefly covered in the news and quickly to be forgotten. Wikinews exists for that very reason, to cover the news. Thanks Secret account 03:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete I don't think we'll get more content, and it doesn't seem to have had any effect that will be particularly remembered in a year's time. Adam Cuerden talk 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This earthquake did not caused significant effects, not even damage, injuries or fatalities.--JForget 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Damage, injuries, and fatalities are not criteria for inclusion, while notability is. --Babedacus (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This an area prone to frequent seismic activity including numerous earthquakes, but this particular one doesn't seem to be notable enough. --JForget 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Not#NEWS. GreenGourd (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this is precisely the sort of article contemplated in WP:Not#NEWS and WP:N#TEMP. A short burst of news reports is not evidence of long term notability.--Kubigula (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (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.