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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pico Rivera earthquake[edit]

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

Per anon request. See this diff. For convenience the reason is as follows: "I prodded the 2010 Pico Rivera earthquake a while ago and it was declined. It is even less notable than the Kalgoorlie-Boulder earthquake, lower magnitude, insignificant damage and in a California where 4.4 is literally nothing." For myself, I'd say it is deleteable per WP:NOTNEWS. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and anon. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable California earthquake. RapidR (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing Rule of 7. Earthquakes of this size in California are in no way notable. Carrite (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

size doesnt matter other factors can make earthquakes notable, this one was unusual because there was no after shocks, it also appears to be the first quake of any size on the Puente Hills Fault which was only discovered in 1999. That said a merge into the Puente Hills Fault article is more appropriate due the lack of any substancial impact beyind the event itself. Gnan garra 06:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and the lack of lasting effects. And thanks to Mike moral for nominating at my request.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on notability (not notable for a Californian earthquake), also WP:NOTNEWS Trex21 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

change of opinion ?Merge I have, on reflection, decided that this could probably be merged into the Puente Hills Fault Trex21 (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no indication of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Puente Hills Fault appears to be the logical action rather than deleting outright. Gnan garra 06:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see the inadvisability of using the Kalgoorlie earthquake as an analogy for any Afd Satu Suro 11:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a red herring, the fact that I mentioned that earthquake on Mike's talk page in my original request is because he put it up for AfD in the first place, thus he would be receptive to putting other earthquakes of lesser notability up for AfD. I recognize that the Kalgoorlie-Boulder earthquake had a lasting impact which is why I did not vote in its AfD (as it is pretty much a snow keep).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 10:32, 17 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.