Deletion of 2010 Venezuela earthquake

Comment: No, the argument is that it passes . I.e., there is ''significant coverage'' from ''reliable sources'' that are ''independent of the subject''. Of course, different Wikipedia guidelines may well be contradictory — and a matter of judgment re "significant", etc
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes  as per
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: ndash; The sources given seem to prove otability|notability. (I don't see how the fourth reference was a dead link.) I think that it was covered up by the severity of the Haitian earthquake, and therefore did not receive as much news coverage as it should have
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The arguments for retention given above amount to |"it's well written and formatted" and |"there are some references in the news about it".  A couple of day-of-event online news stubs stating that an event occurred does not give any indication of the "enduring notability" of this earthquake:  "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" ().  If there were a List of earthquakes in Venezuela, this would merit a row in the table and should be merged there.  Otherwise, this is a completely forgettable earthquake with no need for a standalone article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PRETTY||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per   It makes me feel silly to undo my vote in two consecutive RfD, but I feel (after thoroughly reading it) that SBST applies here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SBST)