Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 2006 Hawaiian 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. Grandmasterka 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 2006 Hawaiian Earthquake

Approximately six thousand earthquakes of this magnitude occur each year (~ sixteen per day). The author indicates that the source states most earthquakes near Hawaii occur near the Big Hawaii Island instead of Oahu, but that alone shouldn't make the quake worthy of its own article. With no damage and no injuries resulting from this earthquake, it's not significantly more notable than other quakes. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article acknowledges that there were no injuries or deaths resulting from the earthquake. While blinds rattled and floors shook, there appears to have been little property damage see [1]. It was too small to trigger a tsunami. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It should be kept because even though there were no injuries, it is a rare feat, and should not be deleted. Hello32020 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. On the one hand, Wikipedia isn't paper, and the idea that we would include an event only if someone died is appalling; lives surely were touched even if there were no deaths. On the other hand, it appears there isn't really much to mention here (yet?). There's an attempt at notability that isn't terribly notable. So I'm a bit flummoxed. Jacqui^★ 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The vast majority of earthquakes are not notable, and this one is no exception. Crabapplecove 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, take it to Wikinews. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Well as Jacqui M said on above, this can be in Wikipedia because This one is important like 1906 Sanfrancisco Earthquake and Hurricanes. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:38 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't rare for that area. Not really worth sending to Wikinews. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An earthquake is an earthquake. If it was given an individual day date in its name I'd probably vote for deletion, but it was given a more broad, monthly name. That, although flimsy, is my argument for keep. Black-Velvet 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Okay, why is this event asserted notable? Because it was in a less than expected place? Hmm, well why would that be interesting? ... What is the larger topic? Earthquakes in/around Hawaii. There's no such article. Seismic activity? Nope. A couple mentions of earthquakes/seismism in Mauna Loa and Hilo, Hawai'i, but nothing on the topic of which this article says the event was notable because it was different than the norm. Where is that norm mentioned? Speaking of which, where is this article linked from? Nowhere. I'd vote for merge, as a one-liner somewhere, but there's nowhere to merge to. Shenme 08:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing especially notable happened BECAUSE of this one quake, so why give it a listing itself? rootology 18:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Include further discussion of significance or Delete. Is this an indication that the magma chamber, pipes and vents are shifting in a way significant to scientific understanding of the phonomena fro Volcanoes? Has it been subject of a scientific article? Why should we include this -- except as part of a list if the list has merit? And this from a pretty strong inclusionist. Williamborg (Bill) 20:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tariqabjotu. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete earthquakes, like schools, are not inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 29 July 2006 (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.