Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 Oaxaca 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1965 Oaxaca earthquake

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

Not every earthquake is notable. This article doesn't suggest that this earthquake was newsworthy and it doesn't have any sources that do more than just demonstrate its existence, not its significance. Eucberar (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of an article does not need to be newsworthy, it needs to be notable and this earthquake is clearly so. There were multiple deaths and the event has been described in several published scientific papers. What this article needs is expansion, not deletion. Mikenorton (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake has met the suggested criteria for notable earthquakes. Qrfqr (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake is significant enough. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Earthquakes over 7.0 should be included on the basis of per se notability as they are rare and historic events; those under magnitude 7.0 should only be included if the smash lots of stuff or squish lots of people. That's not (YET) official policy, but if it were, it would end most of the bad earthquake articles and time-consuming and acrimonious challenges of same. Per Mikenorton above, the significance of this particular event has passed the test of time and this article calls for expansion rather than deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this proposed guideline, which the consesus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 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.