Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2010 Vanuatu 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Vanuatu earthquake

Per WP:NOTNEWS. No deaths, injuries, or damage. Completely unremarkable, aside from the 7.1 magnitude. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes the Rule of 7. To wit: an earthquake is automatically in if it measures 7.0 or greater, and automatically out if it is under 7.0, so long as it doesn't squish lots of people or break lots of stuff. Carrite (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: If they're under 7, stop creating these articles; if they're over 7, stop challenging them... Carrite (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news. There is no evidence of lasting impact, no deaths. ~~(Maybe transwiki to WikiNews?).~~ Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A transwiki to Wikinews cannot occur for two reasons: Wikinews is CC-BY 2.5 and the article would be stale on Wikinews. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: The "Rule of 7" is not an official Wikipedia policy or a guideline. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are just guidelines... Lines for inclusion and exclusion have to be drawn somewhere. This one seems functional, in that 7.0 quakes are sufficiently rare to be notable, of historical interest. There are, correct me if I'm wrong, scores or hundreds of earthquakes each week. One has to draw the line somewhere; size matters. Casualties and destruction also matter. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see, there was no death/injuries or damage, so the logic behind the so-called "Rule of Seven" seems flawed if no damage to structures or people is caused or if there is no lasting significance. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why does the frontpage have a section called "In the news"? Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have a sister project called Wikinews from which we temporarily transclude content. "In the news" on the front page doesn't override that "newsworthy" doesn't equal "notable". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Diego Grez (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it Passes rule of 7, but still didn't do anything and why does anyone need wiki article about it and having it forever. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:06, 27 August 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.