Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 21st-century earthquakes in Europe

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. Davewild (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 21st-century earthquakes in Europe

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

Newly-created "fork" of List of 21st-century earthquakes, designed to extend the accepted inclusion criteria to include non-notable earthquakes, when all the notable ones could easily be covered in the existing article see similar AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of earthquakes in Europe 2011-2015 Mo ainm~Talk 07:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Mo ainm~Talk 07:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mo ainm~Talk 07:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mo ainm~Talk 07:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The logic would dictate that the List of 21st-century earthquakes is only going to grow and grow and become a size issue. WP is not paper, so there's no problem of having a comprehensive list of all earthquakes (with sources, of course) in a given region/timeframe. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once the non-notable earthquakes are removed (per the inclusion criteria on the main article), you're left with not much at all therefore it belongs in the main article. The time for forking from the main article should happen when needed and not before, and especially not forking off a continent which isn't particularly seismically active. And as such deletion now wouldn't prevent a future fork being created if consensus on the main article says it should happen. Mo ainm~Talk 12:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is an encyclopedia. Articles that are non-notable in their own right would be merged into this list via the AfD procees. Take out all the non-notable entries (by your definition) from this list, for example, and you don't have much of a list. Just because the individual earthquakes don't have an entry, doesn't mean they should be excluded from a list of earthquakes. Lugnuts (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#G5. This article was created by a confirmed sock of Ryan kirkpatrick, a rather prolific sockpuppeteer. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both Mo ainm and HelloAnnyong. User:Ryan kirkpatrick has almost 50 sockpuppets now (not counting his continuing use of IPs), and WP needs to crack down on his continued violations IMO; apart from that, he seems unable or unwilling to follow guidelines or community consensus pertaining to notability, hence this list. I think the subject doesn't require a separate list at this stage, but would see no reason not to recreate in the future by an editor in good standing if it is warranted. YSSYguy (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So this could be deleted due to a technicality, then recreated 1 second later. What's the sense in that? Lugnuts (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be recreated when there is consensus on the existing article for a fork to be created, not because a de facto banned sockpuppeteer decided to circumvent consensus and the existing inclusion criteria for earthquake articles to create a fork similar to one previously deleted. Mo ainm~Talk 20:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to List of 21st-century earthquakes. Let's fork it later when necessary and only with the same criteria. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:48, 3 November 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.