Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Alum Rock earthquake


 * 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 keep. Sources provided in the discussion appear to satisfy both WP:GNG and the suggested criteria in the essay at Notability (earthquakes). RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

2007 Alum Rock earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minimal effects and no lasting impact. No encyclopedic or education entry can be created. This is a good example of scientific interest not aligning with encyclopedic notability Dawnseeker2000  20:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

See also:
 * Articles for deletion/October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I have been avoiding these earthquake AfDs, because the earthquake wikiproject seem determined to delete many articles that meet WP:GNG, and even some that meet their own criteria. This nomination is a classic example. How can you say "No encyclopedic or education entry can be created" when an encyclopaedic entry exists? How can scientific interest, as shown in the existence of reliable sources, not align with encyclopaedic notability? In this case, in addition to the sources included in the article, I also find 'Geodetically inferred coseismic and postseismic slip due to the M 5.4 31 October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake', Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2009, J. R. Murray-Moraleda and R.W. Simpson, 'The 2007 M5.4 Alum Rock, California, earthquake: Implications for future earthquakes on the central and southern Calaveras Fault', JGR Solid Earth, 2010, by David H. Oppenheimer, William H. Bakun et al , 'Response of Alum Rock springs to the October 30, 2007 Alum Rock earthquake and implications for the origin of increased discharge after earthquakes', Geofluids, 2009, Michael Manga and Joel Rowland , 'Moderate Earthquake Ground-Motion Validation in the San Francisco Bay Area' Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 2010, by Ahyi Kim, Douglas S. Dreger, and Shawn Larsen . Definitely meets WP:GNG. The previous AfD for an article about this 31 October 2007 earthquake was started on 31 October 2007. Clearly, the editors who thought it was not notable, and would never be notable, did not have crystal balls - the existence of articles published several years after the event is evidence of its notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I feel odd !voting here since I created the article, but I concur with pretty much everything RebeccaGreen said above.  ceran  thor 16:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Still a memorable earthquake per reliable sources. Excelse (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:HEY, I agree with RebeccaGreen on this deletion mania of useful, well sourced earthquakes, including this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not close. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 22:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN reminder. WP:STEWARDSHIP of a topic is admirable, but a STEWARD does not OWN that which he helps to manage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.