Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Kalgoorlie-Boulder 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Kalgoorlie-Boulder earthquake

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The earthquake caused only minor injuries and small damage to buildings. Latest news article is a brief mention in an article dated August 30. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provoked some damage in the area. Diego Grez (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disasters like this are notable enough for inclusion <sarcasm>Um, I thought disasters with minimal damage has no historic significance.</sarcasm>—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails "Rule of 7." Carrite (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia doesnt have rules, it has policies including WP:NOTABILITY which requires coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject which this has, including coverage 6 months after the event. Gnan garra 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was a rule of 7, it'd be a silly rule. Notability varies not just on size but equally importantly by location. A mid-ocean earthquake may (subject to tsumamis) have less impact than one under a major population centre. a quake many kms underground will have less than one close to the surface. Local geology and duration also effect the outcome and hence notability. All may have the same degree of magnitude. The 1989 Newcastle earthquake was mag5.6. 13 people died and $4bn damage was caused. –Moondyne 05:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the significance of the earthquake is quite sufficient for the article to be kept - there are extensive underground mining ventures - both historic and current in the area - and for the region to experience such an event is significant - it also severely damaged a large number of Heritage listed buildings in the locality. There also have been arguments by 'bury uranium waste' campaigners that the area is seismically stable (!) Satu Suro 07:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event has passed and WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply, significant damage was done to historical buildings in the city and one of the strongest earthquakes recorded in Western Australia (was the strongest quake recorded in the Kalgoorlie-Boulder [1]) and is notable (Kalgoorlie-Boulder may not have looked like Christchurch but doesn't mean it was minor and not there doesn't have to be deaths or serious injuries to deem it notable). Bidgee (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable earthquake in a country that doesn't often receive major tremours. The Western Australian Goldfields aren't densely populated, so the fact that the earthquake struck near the region's largest city is remarkable. I'm unsure how the last sentence of the nomination has any bearing on the article's deletion. Graham87 08:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Melburnian (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any earthquake in a populated area tht has caused damage is significant enough for the article to be kept. --Hughesdarren (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for the reasons Graham, Bidgee and Darren have raised. As Bidgee said, the damage to historical buildings was actually fairly extensive, and it occurred in the State's 4th or 5th biggest city, which is unusual (the two other notable earthquakes in recent times in Western Australia have occurred in towns with a population in the few hundreds). Orderinchaos 13:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above keeps. The nom is based on WP:NOTNEWS and I think Bidgee especially has answered why NOTNEWS doesn't apply here and that it is cleary notable. Jenks24 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wish people would stop nominating a lot of the earthquake articles for deletion, per my experience with the quake articles for the Midwest. I hardly ever see one of the thousands of soccer articles that are 3 lines long get nominated. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep damage to multiple buildings and the Burt street which are on the National heritage register, damage to the 100year old Goatcher Curtain the last surviving example of Philip Goatchers work[2], interuption to mining in the region which produces 1b onces of gold per year as reported by Blombergs and The Times. Add to that the event being the largest in the region, a region that is/was considered geologically stable. This is an article that supports information for many other articles rather than the duplication of details in each. Gnan garra 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with all the preceding comments. Dan arndt (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 September 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.