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.
Only claim to notability is the speculation of nuclear tests. Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. WP:NOTNEWSAditya Ex Machina 16:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another McArticle in a project that aimed at trying to write a page on every earthquake that made the day's news. This isn't about the big earthquake in China that killed thousands of people. Does anyone know what the 2010 China earthquake is called in Wikipedia's categories and templates? No, it's not "2010 China earthquake". It's hidden under the title 2010 Yushu earthquake. It's taking awhile, but we're slowly separating notable from non-notable. Mandsford 20:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. WAY too many articles for insignificant 2010 earthquakes, which I suspect is a by-product of the media reporting on every little earthquake since Haiti. AlexHOUSE (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's creator. It was a 6.9 magnitude earthquake, making it one of the larger earthquakes this year. The page may need to be renamed to avoid confusion with Yushu, but it is definitely notable and should be kept. It is also listed as significant for 2010 by the USGS here: ([1]). Also notable about the quake is that there was speculation that it could be a nuclear test. Av9 (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No enduring notability, fails WP:NOTNEWS. 6.9 is not a magic number, that is no claim to notability. USGS's criteria for inclusion is lower than Wikipedia's. Aditya Ex Machina 10:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The depth of 570 km renders this otherwise 'major' earthquake ineffective. It's also way too deep to be a nuclear test, these usually occur close to the surface. RapidR (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, the exact depth and epicenter of a quake isn't immediately available. But you are exactly right, 357 miles is too deep for a nuclear test, considering that the deepest hole ever dug is about 7 miles (or 11 km). Still, if the Great Leader told everyone in North Korea to bring a shovel... Mandsford 01:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage except the immediate event reporting. No followup reports, basically nothing significant happened as a result of this quake - as is usually the case with quakes that deep. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 26 May 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.