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. Sandstein 09:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of earthquakes in the 2010s by death toll[edit]

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

Redundant. This is a stand-alone list – it is not part of a series. We already have a series of list articles (that is almost complete going back to 1900) that covers each year in detail. Deaths are included.

So, lets keep creating the yearly lists (for notable earthquakes – not everything above a certain magnitude) and drop this one. It's just not necessary to create a series of "List of earthquakes in #### by death toll" when the topic is already covered. There's nothing to redirect this one to. Just drop it as its unnecessary. Dawnseeker2000 01:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 14:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Technically it isn't quite redundant to the articles linked by the nom, because they only give information about one year rather than allowing the most deadly earthquakes in an entire decade to be seen. However, I don't consider that a reason not to delete; Wikipedia is not a rephrasing of other Wikipedia pages in a slightly more sortable form (that's what Wikidata is for). Besides, we have List of 21st-century earthquakes already, which this is pretty much redundant to (and which would make a good redirect target if the title is considered to ease searching, which I don't think it does). --ais523 07:47, 3 October 2015 (U T C)

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.