Deletion of 2010 County Clare earthquake

Comment: A minor earthquake, basically falls under #NEWS. If there is still coverage 8-10 months from now, an article might be warranted then
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per .  A merge to an article about earthquakes in Ireland would be appropriate if one is created, since the reason the infobox got filled out was that Ireland is geologically stable.  '''Merge''' to Great Glen Fault , since it's the strongest earthquake there in  years (actually, the first source says "in recent months").  The magnitude of 2.7 on the moment magnitude scale will not be much different than the Richter scale.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moment_magnitude_scale&action=edit&section=5.  Per Richter magnitude scale#Richter magnitudes there are hundreds of quakes in the the 2.0 to 3.9 range-- not just per year put ''per day''.  There is plenty of support today for keeping the article about this recent event in the English-speaking world, but the true test of whether it fails  will be in trying to find any mention of it in June.  There is a place for this, but it's not in its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Normally, earthquakes under a 6.0 are |not kept after AfD.  However, we should consider if "It is the first time we've had seismic activity in that part of the country..." matters.  I do not know
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES)

Comment: The template indicates that we do record notable earthquakes as a matter of course.  There's probably some scope for consolidating this content but our |editing policy is that we do not use deletion for such work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: I fail to see why anyone thinks a mere 2.7 'quake is considered notable. There are hundreds of these daily, so does Wikipedia really need an article for each? It is utterly pointless. If someone wanted a resource documenting the hundreds of earthquakes that occur each day, consult a geological service or institution. An encyclopedia is meant to document notable events. this event killed none was was likely not felt by a majority of the Irish in the area. Why should a 2.7 earthquake have its own article? It should not; there is not reason for it to have one. So before you !vote take my rambling comment in consideration. I've also noticed a tread of keeping articles when there are dead or injured people. I believe there were none, so doesn't this make the article simple a news article like one would find on Wikinews or CNN? I certainly believe that. Isn't Wikipedia |not a news source? It does say in the policy 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOT)

Comment: appears to fail |notability guidelines. Quick Google search reveals few links to |reliable sources and this doesn't seem to have had any lasting historical significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: 2.7? I've slept through 100 times worse, literally. , at most it deserves a small mention in the Geology of Ireland as stated above. Events that are rare only in particular location should only be included in the appropriate location article.--Special:Contributions/137.122.49.102|137.122.49.102
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)