Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 09:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake

[edit]
October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Instead of placing a simple {{prod}}, I'd like to put it up for AfD instead so people can voice their opinion. This earthquake, though less than magnitude 6.0, was higher than the July 4.2 earthquake. And until the readings are officially confirmed and damage reports are all in, it is better to nominate it for deletion rather than just tag the article. The article has {{currentevent}} on there, which means the article will be expanded in due time. It should not be deleted until at least a couple days after the quake. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged with a {{currentevent}} with reason: Same reasons as posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake: Earthquakes in California less than 6.0 with little or no casualties or damage is not significant or notable enough

  • I'd like to KEEP until news stories confirm only minor damage and that the earthquake was indeed less than a magnitude 6.0 before deletion. It should have been tagged with a {{currentevent}} especially when it was already tagged with {{currentevent}}. However, I do agree that earthquakes under magnitude 5.5, not 6.0, should be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and WP:NOT#NEWS. From the citations, it's described as a "moderate temblor", "no reports of damage or injury", "electricity never went out and his telephone was still working". This isn't even the top story in the local news there. Crazysuit 04:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly a non-notable event in the bigger scheme of things. (OK, it was strong enough that it has me up at night reading about earthquakes on Wikipedia, which is how I came across this AfD.) And please note notability is not temporary – either something is notable enough to be permanent part of Wikipedia or it doesn't belong. Jameson – ever heard of Wikinews? If you want to write about this event, there's where to do it. Peter G Werner 05:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability at Wikipedia is NOT determined by how rare or how common something is. It is determined by its appearence in reliable sources in a non-trivial way. There is no evidence presented that this quake is considered notable by the press or by any other reliable source, and untill and unless such coverage exists OUTSIDE of wikipedia, there is not proof of notability and this does not deserve an article IN Wikipedia. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting your citation to WP:RS, "Mainstream newspapers may be a reliable source for some subjects." Since the quake's report was not reported in the Opinion or Op/Ed section of the newspaper, I'm pretty sure San Francisco Chronicle would be a notable and reliable source. And something rare may not be notable for Wikipedia, but a (I'm not a seismologist, therefore I won't make any bold assumptions here) quake that strikes right around where Loma Prieta hit in 1989 (decent quakes have known to strike around 20 year cycles) should make it notable. Sometimes it is a precursor to a larger quake, however, USGS has found that the likelihood of aftershocks more powerful than the initial quake felt last night to occur in the next 7 days is low. If this article shall be deleted, we should merge it to another more notable article so that at least it is somehow on record. If this happens, it would be nice to have a #REDIRECT on to that page. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but with the knowledge that it can be ressurected. We don't have a death toll or damage count yet - until we get something more than minor numbers, it kind of falls below being a notable quake in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#NEWS; The city gets loads of earthquakes each year. Will (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An utterly non-encyclopedic and nonnotable thunderstorm recently caused major property damages and a fatality. This earthquake caused only minor property damage and no injuries. A minor earthquake in a region where there was once a major earthquake gives the local papers a chance to sell some newsprint. It is the essence of non-notability. See the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 03:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Under normal circumstances I might agree. The US Geological Survey (Released: 10/17/2007 12:11:04 PM (approx. two weeks prior)) The 1868 Hayward Earthquake: 139 years and counting... - "Time is not on our side! Sunday, October 21, 2007, marks the 139th anniversary of the 1868 Hayward earthquake. Scientific studies indicate that the average interval between the past five large earthquakes on the Hayward fault has been 140 years. It would not be surprising if another large Hayward Fault earthquake happened tomorrow." Benjiboi 09:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is indeed insignificant as far as casualties and damage go, however considering it is the biggest earthquake in the whole of California with an epicentre onshore for over 3 years it should be seen as noteworthy. As far as earthquakes go a 5.6 is certainly not minor, plenty of people have actually been killed around the world by earthquakes of this size as well as in California. This quake is also noteworthy for achieving over 63000 responses to the USGS 'did you feel it?' earthquake questionnaire, which is the highest ever by quite some margin, again showing it's noteworthiness. RapidR 15:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept. The only reason why there is little to no damage is because of the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. California has been rocking and buildings are becoming being modified to handle earthquakes. This an important earthquake for California. Remember the rest of the Pacific Rim has had stronger earthquakes and if we don't relieve enough pressure on this side, it has been stated we will have a very major earthquake. Noting the 5.6 earthquake may not seem very important but the faults need to let loose on this side of the Pacific Rim. It seems people would rather more damage and devastion be done. We should be happy we have learned and added precautions to keep us safer. I believe it is important to note this earthquake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.87.217 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/October_2007_Alum_Rock_earthquake&oldid=1146631239"