Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library damage resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean 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 No consensus, but perhaps some of the more indiscriminate parts of the article can be trimmed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:52Z

Library damage resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake[edit]

Mainly to see what people here think and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but see further comments below. Carcharoth 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm nominating this to generate further discussion, as I feel that the article in its present form violates the concept that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is some notable stuff in here, but after the non-notable stuff has been weeded out, what is left could be put somewhere like 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#Other_effects, or a new section created on the cultural impact of the disaster. Carcharoth 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article history - I have notified the creator here. Please also note the creator's contributions (from 2-6 November 2006: a draft of this article, a US Department of Defense photo, and moving the draft article into the main article space and a few more edits there). The draft article is at User:Elesemichelle/New sub page. Carcharoth 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't consider this indiscriminate, though I think it might be good to add a section in the opening that establishes the significance of the article. —ShadowHalo 01:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment - Damage from a hurricane is notable, and the article seems properly sourced. I think the only qualms I have is that the article may be too specific, but the sheer amount of information warrants this topic to have its own article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Damage from a hurricane? :-) You mean a tsunami don't you? Carcharoth 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For an event like this, I really believe we need many subarticles to cover it. The tsunami had a gigantic effect on many aspects of life. In the big picture, library damage may seem like peanuts compared to other effects of the disaster, but I wouldn't go as far to say it is an indiscriminate collection of information. If anything, we need more articles about the tsunami. --- RockMFR 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can't believe we have this, can't believe I'm saying keep it, but it is well-referenced and demonstrates some notability, particularly in saying a famous library in Aceh was destroyed and its valuable collection lost. Just create a Ancient library damage in Pompeii to avoid recentism. ;) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purest cruft, WP not an indiscriminate collection of info. Just because it's true doesn't mean there should be an article on it. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the following points are what I believe should be rescued from the article (the tables and lists of libraries and damage ratings should go - I think this is actually some paper presented at a librarian's conference that the author has stuck online because they think that is what Wikipedia is for):
  - "The Aceh Documentation and Information Center, known for its collection of rare books and manuscripts chronicling the heritage of Aceh, was completely destroyed. Only half of the building remained standing, and the entire collection was swept away. A team from the National Library of Indonesia visiting in January 2005 was able to salvage only three books and one sheet of the genealogy of the Muslim kings of Aceh. These were taken to Jakarta for restoration."
  - "Aceh branch of the National Land Register Agency was inundated with water. Roughly 629 boxes of materials certifying individual land ownership in the province were damaged. Due to the efforts of a team of conservators from Japan and archivists from the National Archives in Jakarta, many of these land register documents were preserved."
  - "The National Maritime Museum in Galle lost 90 percent of its collection, mostly artifacts salvaged from underwater wrecks and archaeology sites. The Maritime Archaeology Unit of the Central Cultural Fund was also severely damaged, resulting in the loss of artifacts from an 18th century Dutch shipwreck."
  - Plus several of the stats about numbers of buildings destroyed and people killed: "2,364 teachers and staff members were killed and 2,240 schools were destroyed on Sumatra and its outlying islands." (Indonesia) and "it is estimated that 1.2 million volumes of books and other reading materials were destroyed in the disaster" (Sri Lanka).
- That is about all I could find that I considered worth keeping. If people want more, they can follow the links to the sources, IMO. Carcharoth 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it may seem trivial information to those of us in the West but the article addresses a very serious issue. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The earthquake is still quite a big topic as RockMFR has pointed out, which requires a number of articles to support it. This article is long enough. Failing that, a merge is possible, but this would mean another article would become too long. Therefore, I would rather keep. Insanephantom 12:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While the information in this article is valuable, I think it's too in-depth for an encyclopedia. As such, I don't think that Wikipedia is the appropriate place for this information.Librarylefty 07:22, 2 January 2007 (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.