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. (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article about earthquakes of magnitude 2.5-3.0 is surely non-notable, no matter where the location. RapidR (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If 2.5 minimum is notable, then I can provide you with about 10 more individual 3-line articles like this. And this is just covering where I live. Non-notable. -WarthogDemon 03:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed two of the references which were broken links, and did a quick search for notability (as the article asserts) and there are no significant sources other than 'small-town-news' style newspaper entries. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The earthquake equivalent of a simple thunderstorm compared to say, a hurricane. SInce hurricanes are notable, but thunderstorms not usually; a 3.0 magnitude, of which there are dozens going on right now, seems to lack any inherant notability, and there does not seem to be anything notable about this specific earthquake either. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnotable, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Just because it happened in Dallas isn't even that notable. Texas may not be "seismically" active, but it does have regular minor earthquakes. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 16:13, 3 July 2009 (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.