Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994 Java 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]

1994 Java earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(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) 10:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So 250 deaths isn't significant in your view. As notable as they come. Mikenorton (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 250 deaths would make it newsworthy! If that happened today, it would probably get a spot on the frontpage under ITN. Lugnuts (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This earthquake has met the suggested criteria for notable earthquakes. Qrfqr (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is significant enough, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep for a challenge so terrible that it verges on the disruptive. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per this proposed guideline, which the consensus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. In this case, the consensus is overwhelming for a keep of this 7+ earthquake; there were over 250 deaths, it was an unusually shallow subduction earthquake, and an odd slow-moving tsunami was generated. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly very notable. RapidR (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 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.