This earthquake caused no deaths, injuries or major damage. Comparing it against the earthquake notability guidelines, it's marginal at best. I'm not convinced that it deserves its own article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There was a cliff collapsing and that's it. So I agree. Wykx (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
- It could meet the criteria listed in earthquake notability guidelines as it is a) part of "a swarm of events" and b) the intensity was at VII on the Mercalli scale [1]. Also, with the 5th anniversary of the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake 8 days after the quake listed in this article, it has a social impact and relevance in that regard. In addition, the June 2011 Christchurch earthquake is a part of the same swarm and only one person died (an elderly man who fell over) as a result but it has its own article. Then again, the December 2011 Christchurch earthquake redirects to the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake despite two (if not more) of the quakes on that day also met the intensity requirement (albeit with no deaths I am aware of) [2] [3]. So maybe some consistency needs to applied with which of these articles stays or goes, as, in my mind, they are all significant parts of the "swarm" we are experiencing here. --IrasNZ (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
- The two December 2011 earthquakes are equally notable; they caused a lot more damage. In addition, there was an event centred directly under the CBD on Boxing Day 2010; the mayor commented yesterday that it was the Boxing Day quake that really knocked people's confidence. I would suggest those December earthquakes are all notable, and for consistency's sake, we should have articles for them. Two additional articles, to be clear, as there was only 80 minutes or so between the two December 2011 earthquakes. I guess part of this discussion should be had on the AfD page. Schwede66 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
- @Wykx: @Mikenorton: Atm I oppose. Despite the article is not at good quality, adding more information and major fixing-ups should already make the article to good. Yes I know that the earthquake is relatively minor, but imo adding this into the List of NZ earthquakes article is great. However, if nothing happens in the future (anything related to this or future great earthquakes) and the article is still below the standards, deleting this article is necessary. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
