Deletion of July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake

Comment: The large number of reliable sources provided in July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake#Notes establish the notability of this event per Wikipedia:Notability|Wikipedia's notability guideline, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  #NEWS, cited in support of the deletion of this article, is primarily concerned with articles which give excessive publicity to negative incidents in the lives of otherwise non-notable people.  It is not an appropriate justification for deleting a well-referenced article concerning an earthquake that obviously has no  problems
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BLP)

Comment: Meh. Minor earthquake, minimal property damage, no injuries reported in the article. At this point it seems no more significant than a thunderstorm. Wikipedia is not #NEWS a newspaper. News media report any detectable earthquake without making a clear distinction of how much the shaking increases for every unit increase in the magnitude. I didn't see any listed at Earthquake lower than about 5.9 magnitude, more than an order of magnitude larger in movement and more than an order of magnitude less frequent.If this is part of the Hayward Fault Zone then there could be a Smerge (slight merge, a term invented by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: against the guideline  which might seem to be satisfied by a flurry of news reports on one day or a few days about a small earthquake, we must balance the policy OT#NEWS which says "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." This flurry of news coverage just the sort of "15 minutes of fame" which distinguihes between newspapers and encyclopedias, wich look for more long term coverage of an event, or for it to have some enduring effects on society. Merchandise thrown off shelves and people being inconvenienced does not make the cut. See also the essay OTNEWS which reflects the views of some editors on the difference between events being "newsworthy" and them being "encyclopedic." Also  says "Note 4: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Are all the quoted sources independently writing articles, or are they just reprinting news service releases
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N)

Comment: to Hayward Fault Zone. Although I would support deletion of an earthquake with no significant impact, this one did cause a power failure to a non-trial number of customers, and more importantly initially shut down BART, and required resorting to manual control to  restore service. The article also claims Geologists cited this event in relation to the Hayward Fault, and the content could possibly be merged there (although that article is already quite long). Formulaic criteria for notability have been rejected by community consensus, so arguments that earthquakes of magnutude X are notable or non-notable should not be given any significant weight (see also 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BIGNUMBER)