Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsunamis in the United Kingdom

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. While we seem to have consensus this article should have some other name, we do not have a consensus what that name should be. Discussion of that should continue on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunamis in the United Kingdom

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

Bizarre content fork. As the article itself states, tsunamis are very rare indeed in the UK. The only examples in the article are two minor historical events, both of which have their own articles, a tsunami in Portugal which possibly affected the UK, a 'peak wave' of 40cm this year, then speculation about the future possibility of there being tsunamis there. Bear in mind here that no other countries have their own 'tsunamis in..' page, presumably because as by their very nature tsunamis don't happen in countries but out at sea. Historic tsunamis is perfectly capable of holding this information. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it would be a good idea to create these for countries where there are many tsunami (like Japan, Hawaii/Alaska) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps. Tsunamis happen at sea, they usually affect multiple countries. For Japan and Alaska I can understand the case for an article. But for the UK? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japan, Alaska and the UK are all countries bordering the sea that are affected by tsunamis - I don't see why you think there is a difference between them.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article details three significant historical events, two of which were certainly major tsunamis. I don't see any valid reason to delete - certainly not because tsunamis are rare in the UK. To allay the nominators later concern that "tsunamis don't happen in countries" perhaps a rename to Tsunamis affecting the United Kingdom or even List of tsunamis affecting the United Kingdom might be appropriate (or Great Britain if we want to refer to the island not the country) --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bizarre nomination. The topic is notable - see this book for pages of details about UK tsunamis. Warden (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the references it seems just notable enough for an article. But rename to Tsunamis affecting the British Isles. Surely we need a geographical region instead of a political one. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, as several entries predate the political entity. Possibly convert to list format. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator - Everyone who is voting 'keep' here - do you think it would be reasonable to create 'Tsunamis in...' articles for every other minor geographical region of the world? If not, then why do you think the UK (or British Isles if you prefer) is special in this regard? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very reasonable. Just as Tsunamis affecting Japan, Earthquakes in New Zealand, or Hurricanes affecting Barbados would all be reasonable articles. Is your only objection "we don't have many articles like this yet"? --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is special because this is the English Wikipedia. Its readership and editors will naturally be especially interested in events in this part of the world. Note that there was a TV show broadcast by the BBC this evening which discussed tsunamis in the British Isles. This will have had millions of viewers here. The topic therefore has considerable notability. Warden (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 应该删除，支持Pontificalibus--俠刀行 (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep seems to be enough there, agree with Dingo1729 rename to Tsunamis affecting the British Isles this will allow for expansion. Mtking (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Tsunamis affecting the British Isles with Tsunamis affecting Great Britain as a redirect (at least for now, a separate article about the island of Ireland could be split off at a later date if required). Lists/articles covering other countries/regions should also be created where sources exist. Alternatively or additionally the articles/lists could be organised by bodies of water (e.g. List of tsunamis in the North Atlantic ocean or List of tsunamis in the Irish Sea) but the 1755 tsunami affected more than one body of water so it may not be as good. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the tsunamis here are covered in reliable independent third-party sources (except possibly the 2011 one which is a borderline WP:NOTNEWS) - maybe not as much as Alaska or Japan, but still more than enough. Some room for debate over how this information should be arranged, but as most of the events listed here are not covered elsewhere, deletion isn't an option. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the events listed here ARE covered elsewhere, they just aren't linked properly yet. The exception being the 2011 one you don't like. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are linked elsewhere, there is still, at the very least, a list that is not available anywhere else on Wikipedia. There is scope to debate whether we should just have a wikilinked list or a wider article summarising each tsunami with links to the full article elsewhere (both are perfectly normal or acceptable on Wikipedia), but that's not what AfDs are for - that's for a content discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be enough verifiable sources to support such a list. I strongly encourage the name change to British Isles instead of UK based on the dates of events prior to UK existing. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:05, 12 July 2011 (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.