List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake: All earthquakes that are at least moderately large have aftershocks, so nothing unusual about that.  The project has only two such lists, List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and List of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake , both much shorter than this one and their notability has been questioned.  The notability of any such lists was considered in the RfC in 2018, Talk:Lists of earthquakes/Archive 2#Are lists of earthquake aftershocks ever notable?  , the result of which was summarised as "Lists of aftershocks selected by any arbitrary criteria are deemed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of trivia and generally discouraged, unless the list itself, as established and discussed by a reliable source, is notable" Mikenorton ( talk ) 16:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists , Syria ,  and Turkey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake If we're gonna delete that, then lets delete these too and any other aftershock lists for any other articles.  Lets just delete every list page too while we're at it.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 21:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Anyway, my stance is as follows: The aftershocks always got significant media attention.  Significant information is being lost by removing this.  WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be invoked to justify deleting Wikipedia or any other page.  A person could read this and get a bigger picture or y'know, if you think it needs more info, then add it.  The other articles are precedent and that they have not been deleted despite numerous "questionings" of their notability by minimalists is proof in and of itself of its notability.  Information is being lost by removing this, or the others, and significant information at that.  Strongly oppose.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 21:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but limits to 5.0.  I think the 7.5 and the 6.3 aftershock are notable in its own right as the 6.3 aftershock in February 20 has some RSs covering it.  However, most of the aftershocks (4.0->5.0) are not notable, and the 43 aftershocks which is 5.0+ is enough to be notable for the article.  Thingofme ( talk ) 23:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lets change it to 5.0+ then DarmaniLink ( talk ) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  [1] meets NLIST by amount of coverage in the press.  [2] Legitimate SPINOFF of 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake .  [3] Do limit to magnitude 5.0 and greater, as Thingofme suggests.  This way something good will roll out of the nomination.  gidonb ( talk ) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Coverage establishes that WP:NLIST is met, and splitting this content from the large article about the earthquake itself is worthwhile.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:43, 7 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep