Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Chino Hills 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. The arguments for deleting the page were not convincing, and only referred to WP:NOT as their basis. The "keep" commenters pointed out that the article meets our verifiability, neutrality and no original research policies, and I was particularly swayed by Rorry1's arguments. On a more mundane basis, there is no way in hell that this article will gain a consensus to be deleted, so let's stop wasting everybody's time. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Chino Hills earthquake

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is nothing special about this earthqauake at all. No-one died, little damage, and it isn't a record or unprecedented for SoCal, unlike the Illinois or Market Rasen earthquakes. In short, delete per WP:NOT. Sceptre (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 0

 * Keep, I say let it play out a bit first. -- Phoenix 2 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * edit conflict Delete - I was planning on nomming but never got around to it. Sure, CNN and others are totally hyping this, but nothing serious has happened. There's nothing notable about it except the sort-of high magnitude number - CL — 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, The earthquake was really just a few minutes ago. You people need to learn to edit correctly. There's nothing special about a snow storm that hit Ohio in 2006 or 2007 and one in 2008 but yet, there's an article. Sorry for being mean. Haha. But yeah, let is play a bit first. Keep as a stub at least.
 * Keep - Give it some time, not all the details are quite clear yet, let's just hold off for a while, besides what if there's a powerful aftershock?
 * See WP:CRYSTAL. Until said powerful aftershock happens, it still isn't notable. CL — 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, give it some time to play out. BKMCAE (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now. This earthquake was one of the first major earthquakes Los Angeles has had in a while. I say keep for the time being until we get a clear estimate of how much damage was caused. Also, people might want to come to this article for more information on what's been going on. (Keep in mind that the Whittier Narrows quake in 1987, a 5.9, was the last big shake Southern California had; 5.4 is still pretty big, albeit small compared to the one in 1987.) Any Wikipedians from SoCal feel it? Iamwisesun (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I felt it, by the way. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 08:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant coverage in reliable source that are independent of the subject. Presumed notability. Besides, WP:NOT is an assertion, not a deletion criterion. --Elliskev 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There is significant coverage and it meets the standards of Wikipedia. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.62.153 (talk)
 * Comment - I've just had a look through the California earthquakes category. The weakest one apart from this is about 20 times stronger. Sceptre (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd probably keep it for now because (a) we don't have too much data on its significance, (b) it's Los Angeles, a city which everyone expects to eventually get "the big one", and (c) every news reporter in the country is on edge because they want to be the first in to "ground zero" to report on it. I suspect the article will ultimately be deleted in a few days once this dies down and reporters realize that they're not getting the Pulitzer Prize,... Dr. Cash (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and reporters being excited about something is definitely not a good enough reason on its own for WP to have an article about it. --BG (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per NOT#NEWS. Elliskev, the nominator didn't say anything of notability &mdash; he nominated based on the "assertion" that this is news blow up, which I'll agree with. A 5.2 earthquake in LA is nothing new for LA. If it were in Beijing, or in another high-risk society (low building standards, many people, etc), then I think it might be worth keeping. But as it is? --Izno (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What? So is it notable, or not? I don't understand the reason for the nomination, I guess. --Elliskev 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with Sceptre. As of now, this might be just another earthquake, with no resulting damage to people or property. If there is any major developments in the future that makes this notable we can always recreate or undelete. But as of now, this isn't notable as I see it per WP:NOTNEWS. It might become notable in the future if anything else should happen, but keeping for this reason would come under WP:CRYSTAL. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS is an essay. Just sayin'. --Elliskev 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but still.. If this quake had no consequences other than making a few headlines in the papers, I see no reason for this to be kept. Wikinews would be a better place for this for now. Bjelleklang -  talk 21:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Spend your energy doing something useful on Wikipedia, instead of trying to delete articles that will only be re-created. It's a notable event. It's already gotten international attention, and there's no harm in creating an article on Wikipedia (which is not paper), where people come for information as it develops, whether you like that or not. Moncrief (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm spending my energy trying to keep sensationalist news articles off Wikipedia, which is after all an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper. I suspect the other people suggesting Delete are doing a similar thing. --BG (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for a few days in case there are ramifications or as-yet-unappreciated notability, then take a view on its long-term value. Barnabypage (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable per ITN section, and not all articles have dead people; earthquakes included. This is under-construction, since the quake only happened 25 minutes ago. It requires time to develop and match Wikipedia's policies. If its still in such a horrible state after a few days, then re-request deletion. --haha169 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not the state of the article, it's the fact that it is about something that is at most a news event, and does not belong on Wikipedia. --BG (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete until something happens to make this more than just a news story.  D C E dwards 1966  20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An earthquake never becomes more than a news story. GA article, 2008 Sichuan earthquake, cites news journals and media outlets primarily. These earthquakes only make it to news stories until years later when an educational synthesis can be published. If we follow your suggestion, we should go and delete all the earthquake articles, and by extension to related topics, half the articles on Wikipedia! --haha169 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad, bad, bad. bad example to use to support your point. About 70,000 people DIED in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, making it a major international disaster. There aren't even reports of serious injury (per CNN's current coverage) from today's quake. Sichuan is notable on the basis of its casualties alone. 23skidoo (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Strong Keep  This was heavy shaker, I thought my house was going to come off its foundation.  It should be further noted that this quake was weird in a sense.  Quakes are either a Jolt, or a roller.  This was both, it started with a slight rolling sensation, then the ground jolted, followed by 20 more seconds of rolling. It lasted about 45 seconds in Mission Viejo, CA--Subman758 (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are now reports from the FAA about minor Runway damage at three local airports, LAX, John Wayne Airport, & Ontario Airport.--Subman758 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * keep, there has been several minor damages along with broken water lines and the las vegas city hall had some violent shakes
 * Keep, need to let this play out a bit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.225.249 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above statements of keeps.. Los Angeles is not a small place.. An earthquake in a place like LA with a magnitude of 5.4 lasting about 1 minute should be kept for awhile.. even if it means until there is wikipedia. --Axxand (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now -- and for the very practical reason that people will continue to try to write about it for a while -- but in a week or two or three it will very likely prove to be a non-event, and deletable. FWIW, where I am (Santa Barbara) it was the strongest shaker since the Northridge quake in 1994, and was rather a spectacular rolling event.  Antandrus  (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but voting more than once doesn't help our cause. If you have new thoughts, put them under your initial vote, please. Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct my bad, I relocated the info.--Subman758 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Los Angeles is no more important than Iran or the Philippines... IMO -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * censorship attempted at my vote :( I may support now to merge with Chino Hills-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Strong Keep  This is notable, wikipedia is a place for information and earthquakes wherever should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapletip (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep maintaining information like this is one of the reasons Wikipedia exists! What a terrific resource for research!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete—For me, the article itself gives the strongest reason for deletion... The region suffered only minor damage. While it may have gained instant notoriety, I don't think that's the same as encyclopedic notability.  What would EB do?  Livitup (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment isn't that gives a strong reason to be kept.. The region suffered only minor damage with a 5.4 frequency which occurs only every 10 years with 5.5 is the maximum and 5.6 could only occur every 100 years.. think about that. isn't it amazing that LA only suffered minor damage with a 5.4 frequency.. i conclude that should be kept.--Axxand (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Definitely notable, plenty of reliable citations that verify claims... Plus, I live in Southern California and I felt the damn thing! --Happyme22 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very notable. Size is notable, not necessarily damage. The only reason there wasn't more damage was because it happened in an area with newer infrastructure...whereas quakes in LA proper are devastating because they affect hundred year old buildings. Rorry1 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we close this now. The overwhelming consensus is to keep the article. Its silly to debate this further. Rorry1 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, patience is the way to go. Some admin will come by and close it in due time. You don't have to worry about the article being deleted. --haha169 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or transwiki to Wikinews. It's not a major earthquake by any objective definition, end of story. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a guideline somewhere that defines the threshold? --Elliskev 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

 * Comment. There's little point casting a vote since it's a SNOW situation, but for my part I don't feel this is another Northridge. Earthquakes, even serious ones, are a dime a dozen in LA and southern California and I'm not seeing indication that this is another Northridge. I fully expect this to be renominated within the week and unless something really serious transpires as a result of the shaker today, I'll probably break my own rule and support the renonomination. I normally do not support quick renominations after keep decisions, but I really don't see anything to make this notable in the long term based upon current coverage. If it was another Northridge, we'd have heard by now. 23skidoo (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your statement "Earthquakes, even serious ones, [emphasis mine] are a dime a dozen in LA and southern California" is wildly hyperbolic, even in the context of the minimal hyperbole I imagine you intended. I'm not saying this is another Northridge, of course it isn't, but it is the strongest earthquake to directly affect the urbanized Los Angeles area since Northridge, 14 years ago. (AP: "The strongest earthquake to strike a populated area of Southern California in more than a decade") Why shouldn't we create a viable article about this event, which did cause some damage? How is Wikipedia weakened by having such an article available for those who may want to search for it in the future, who may want to use it as a reference to compare with some future quake? Moncrief (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, whatever. As of now I will vote speedy keep for any earthquake article nominated for AFD. Full stop. The precedent has been set as far as I'm concerned and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS will no longer apply. 23skidoo (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont see the harm in keeping the article. If there is enough information to form an article, and the event makes national news for nearly an entire day, then why shouldn't it stay? This is an encompassing encyclopedia, and it should keep significant events like this. Perhaps the Whittier Narrows earthquake or the 2004 Parkfield-San Bernardino earthquake should be deleted as well as for they were of similar magnitude. I dont think there is any question that this was a significant earthquake. Rorry1 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Richter scale is logarithmic (I believe it is), a 6.0 earthquake would be about twenty times stronger. Sceptre (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you're ready to vote "Speedy keep" on all of these articles? Good thing, to, since deleting this would mean deleting the 168 articles on that page due to your idea of "precedent". --haha169 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is silly to say a 6.0 would be 20x stronger. I was in Northridge, and this one felt stronger than Northridge. Had this one been 20x stronger, LA would be in ruins and a tsunami would be on its way to Japan. That is a really silly statement. You act like we had this little shake. It was no little shake. It was stronger (at least in Orange County) than Northridge was. In Orange County, it was undoubtedly the strongest quake in our area in 30+ years.Rorry1 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mathematically, not perceptually. Sceptre (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:SNOW applies when the majority has policy on their side. Here, it is not clear that that is the case.  A closing admin could very well decide to delete the article, depending on his or her interpretation of competing policy arguments.  This is not a vote, etc. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is: WP:SNOW isn't a policy. Oh yeah...it actually isn't. Besides, this article was started less than a few hours ago! You can't expect an article to be created that quickly, especially since the event itself only occurred a few hours ago.--haha169 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to imply that it was. Policies are few, but do include WP:NOT and WP:RS. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what Wikipedia isn't - but the fact remains that the "revamping" template is still there, and the article is still constructing. It's seem some big jumps, and some media outlets still have to get their game on! Additionally, you can't delete an article that's nominated to go on the Main Page - since its good enough to be considered. I seem to remember what 2008 Sichuan earthquake looked like when it was on the main page. Honestly, just wait. --haha169 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep This is pushing it--5.4 magnitude? But it was located in SoCal, and thus there is WP:RS available, most of which is present in the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nobody was killed or injured. Why are you making an article about this? Forego (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is precedent on Articles for deletion/October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake and Articles for deletion/July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake. In both cases, I said on those discussions, "Earthquakes in California less than 6.0 with little or no casualties or damage is not significant or notable enough". Both earthquakes were in fact less than 6.0 magnitude and with little little or no casualties or damage ... and thus these articles were eventually deleted for that reason, WP:NOT, and some other comments similar to ones post above in this discussion. Since the earthquake is less than 24 hours old, the article now in question already is plagued by recentism, and there are a lot of comments above asking to keep. Since I doubt there is enough consensus now to delete at this moment, I am staying neutral for now, but I reserve my right to change my vote to delete before this discussion is closed, or the option to repost this article back on AFD a few months later. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any earthquake in the Los Angeles area exceeding 5.0 is significant because of the population of the area. The one in New Zealand affected hardly anyone. The Alum Rock one affected just a few thousand. This earthquake affected a 100 mile radius with a population exceeding 21,000,000. A 6.0 may not be significant if it were in, lets say, the High Desert of California, because of the lack of population. Also, there are over 20 earthquake articles on Wiki right now for earthquakes in the 4.0 and 5.0 range...most recently the 2008 Earthquake in Indiana which affected less than 5% of the number of people this earthquake affected today. You need to look beyond the magnitude and look at the number of people affected, the area it occured in, and how the media reacts to it. Rorry1 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is hard to look at the overall historical perspective (especially in terms of California's earthquake history) and judge in regards to WP:RECENT when the event happened less than 24 hours ago, and how the LA area, the media capital of the world, reacts during that short period of time. Thus, of course you are going to get more of the media frenzy from the news outlets. Again, I am staying neutral because I cannot make a sufficient judgment until more time has passed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I empasize California's earthquake history. California, an area of the world with a lot of earthquake faults and a history of large earthquakes, does currently have strict building laws in place so most buildings and structures should be able to withstand a 5.X earthquake. So it would be no surprise that such a tremor would result in little or no damage and injuries, unlike a place like China. If in several months, the content of this article can be trimed to a few non-trival paragraphs, I would have no objection to merging it into a List of earthquakes in California. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, to see how this goes. Chances are it will be regarded as non-notable soon enough, but who knows yet? I'd add a comment that I felt a considerably stronger earthquake two weeks ago, and wouldn't for one moment have considered it Wiki-worthy. Grutness...wha?  00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This earthquake did both damage to structures and caused injuries. Michaelh2001 (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very, very Strong Keep - This was featured in several notable new sources, it is definitely notable. Just because its magnitude is small proves nothing. -- Meldshal   (§peak to me)  00:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This happened... earlier today? (That would explain why so many editors remember it.) Minimal damage? Belongs to Wikinews, then. An event of this kind is notable when it gets reported in newspapers at the other end of the country. If the Montreal Gazette doesn't mention this earthquake tomorrow, I'll change this to a delete. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the bigger news would be that Quebec was annexed to the United States? According to you, Quebec is now part of USA. Rorry1 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "Originally estimated at magnitude 5.8, it was the strongest earthquake to occur in California since the 2004 Parkfield-San Bernardino earthquake,[3] and the strongest in an urbanized area of southern California since the 1994 Northridge earthquake.[4]" Shouldn't this alone guarantee notability, no matter how recent this is (with sources, that is)? There were injuries, despite little damage and no deaths. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It can affect the lives of 7 in 100 Americans. It can cause significant damage. It can be the largest earthquake in Southern California in 13 years. But if it doesn't kill anyone.....its not notable for some editors here. Always puzzles me how we can have such insignificant articles on Wiki, but yet a natural disaster is not important enough for Wiki. Rorry1 (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been that way for a long time. A lot of articles degenerate into fancruft, while franly important articles like these are ignored in the systemic bias. It's even worse for Africa and Asia. But don't worry, this one will be kept. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was a moderate earthquake in a very very populated place that has received high amounts of media coverage including international mentions.  Its an informative article that is clearly notable in my opinion. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is fine because the Earthquake was medium (5.4) so it maybe a major earthquake. Earthquakes that are 4.9 to 0.0, should not have an article. Jet (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I came here for information about the quake, only to find that some of you Wikipedians are trying to take this article down. It is clearly notable. It has been getting national coverage, and is the strongest quake in 14 years to hit LA. This isn't somebody trying to make a dumb article about some 3.0 earthquake that hit his hometown, this is a notable earthquake originally estimated at 5.8 (downgraded now to 5.4, but they're still working on that). It has been getting heavy media coverage all day and probably will still be in the days to come. Just because nobody's died yet doesn't mean this falls under WP:NOT. Lexi (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOT means one day's worth of RS media coverage, no matter how widespread, just doesn't cut it. If it keeps getting coverage in, say, two weeks, then we should probably consider having an article on it. As is, I predict it will rapidly become nothing more than a trivia question. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me, the folks at WP:QUAKE (including myself) will never allow this to degrade into trivia. Honestly, why do we need to cover every Simpson's episode while we don't cover an event wich injured several people? For God's sakes, it has only been one day, so give it a chance! Most earthquakes are only covered for a few days, then it all stops. And from that few days' coverage we have 2002 Iran earthquake, a Good Article soon to be FAC. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer the probably rhetorical question, I don't see a whole lot of value that Wikipedia can add vs. what news outlets will cover--certainly not within the first 24 hours. "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." seems written for just this sort of article. Obviously, that's a view not widely held amongst participants on this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Wikipedia covers the facts....the statistics of the earthquake, damages, fatalities, etc. The news covers peoples emotions, peoples reactions to the quake, individual response, speculation, etc. There is a BIG difference between this encyclopedia entry and the LA Times article on this topic. Its doesn't take much to compare Wiki to LA Times and see the clear differences.75.47.164.158 (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Not News is meant to be applied with at least a minimal degree of common sense and judgment. Those who actually want to not cover anything that appears in a 2008 newspaper should try to change the rules to that effect (or, much more likely, spin off a different wiki), not nominate like this. DGG (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is really no reason to delete this article. The event is certainly notable and the article is encyclopedic.-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 02:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, at least for now. It doesn't seem a particularly significant earthquake in historical terms, but it has received plenty of press coverage, which is reason enough for us to have an article on it. Terraxos (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because people didn't die, doesn't make the article any less significant.Gunnerdevil4 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If this were a 7.0 with extensive damage and major injuries/deaths, or a 5.5 in a place not known for earthquakes, this would be notable. A sub-6 in a place where earthquakes are planned for, with zero deaths and only very minor damage, is a waste of mainspace. The only truly notable thing about this earthquake is that it was heard live on The Jim Rome Show. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, you just answered your own question! Los Angeles has not experienced a sub-6 magnitude quake since 1994, and there has been a complete lack of quakes at all for the past few months! This is quite notable all right. --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You totally missed my point, and sounded like a fool in the process. A sub-6 magnitude quake since 1994?  Technically a 2.0 tremor, which is nearly a daily occurence for L.A., is a "sub-6 earthquake".  Los Angeles these days is built so that anything under 6 won't really cause serious damage. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 04:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Waste of space" as a criterion for deletion?? I really think you need to read . Moncrief (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as there was damage to significant structures, such as Pomona City Hall. No deaths yet reported, though. Calwatch (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too small to be likely to have any long-term historical significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:CRYSTAL. --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You're contradicting yourself. In this case, CRYSTAL would have us delete the article because nothing of significant importance has happened. What you said makes no sense. It hasn't been "long-term" yet, how do we know what long-term effects, if any, will occur? CL — 04:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, your speculating that it is unlikely to have long-term significance. On wiki, you have to give it the benefit of the doubt, or else we'll be deleting articles left and right.--haha169 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not speculating, it's a fact. I never said it was unlikely, it might be as likely as the next sunrise; then again, it might be as unlikely as someone inventing a time machine. But probability isn't a factor; it's what has or hasn't occurred yet. CL — 04:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment in addition to my Keep above This is getting crazy. There is overwhelming consensus, (even by some of those opposers), to wait for a few days and see the results then. By then, it should be obvious whether or not to delete or keep. --haha169 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The criteria shouldn't be whether there has been any casulties, or whether there was any structural damage or not. The criteria should be whether there are news articles and references about it, and there are plenty. This article and its references might be useful for later research when someone does a study on LA earthquakes and its impact on the LA community.enderminh (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

 * Weak Keep I must say that as a Southern Californian, I did feel this thing. I also live near Los Angeles and get a better idea of its impact. Yes, damage was relatively small, but this is the strongest quake to hit an urban area of Los Angeles since the Northridge Quake. However, I do have to wonder if this quake will be remembered as little as a few weeks down the line, which makes this not really notable. There was damage, but I doubt there was enough to require notability (probably final estimates will be a mil or so at most). I think it will be an intresting article to show how LA is impacted by an earthquake or how building codes kept damage minimal (of course once USGS says something along those lines). Let's just wait and see how notable this thing is down the line. guitarhero777777 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You were in Los Angeles, it was relatively weak there. For Orange County residents, this was the biggest quake since before Orange County was anything more than orange groves in the 1950's. The Northridge was big....to those of you in Los Angeles. But in Orange County, we felt a fairly mild shaking. This quake was definately stronger for us compared to Northridge. And seeing that there has not been a 5.0+ in Orange County since the 1950's...its fairly notable.Rorry1 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On a side note, why is there another article on this earthquake? Chino Hills Earthquake needs to be merged or deleted. guitarhero777777 (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit Conflict Delete It was moderate yes but there is to much edit conflict and edit wars going on either it gets deleted or you Protect The Page so that vandals cant edit it, there is alot of edit wars going on because of this page...I think its best for wiki. Unless you protect it for atleast 2 weeks or so to stop vandals. or unregistored editors. MountCan (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you had followed any other incident of significance on Wikipedia, you would know that they ALL have edit conflicts when they are fresh issues. So, whats the solution? Delete all the significant events that go on in the world because too many people edit it's article? Think about how silly that statement is. Rorry1 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MountCan, I have been monitoring this article, and there have been no incidents of vandalism as far as I'm concerned. That one IP you reverted, I reverted your reversion. It is non-essential detail. Aside of that revert, I have not seen many vandalism-related reverts at all. Only two - one that I reverted myself, and another which someone reverted me to address my concerns in my edit summary. That's it. No preemptive measures please. Also, "Edit Conflicts" are different than edit wars.--haha169 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article for the largest earthquake in a 14 year period to hit a populated area of Southern California, one of the most seismically active regions on earth, up for deletion? There is no WP:MUST_BE_DEATHS guideline or policy anywhere in Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- When is the strongest earthquake in Calif. in a decade not notable? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not the strongest earthquake to strike Cali. in a decade. It is the strongest earthquake to hit the Los Angeles area though. guitarhero777777 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's totally irrelevant whether it was the strongest earthquake to hit LA in a decade. Would you create a WP article about the highest high tide to hit Ireland in a century if it was only a small amount higher than the next-highest, and caused no flooding or other problems? This site is Wikipedia - an encyclopedia. This article is news, and belongs on Wikinews. --BG (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is a mag. 5! It is not a weak earthquake. And also, I would appreciate it if you stopped using that condescending tone of yours. I have been editing here for years, and have edited way more articles than you have. Who are you to lecture me on what belongs to where? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Weak" is subjective, and by all objective definitions this was a minor earthquake in terms of damage caused. Furthermore, my comment wasn't directed at you - I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was "lecturing you"? --BG (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The USGS has come out and say that this is a good quake, as in this is not your normal earthquake. When experts in the field say it is not weak, it is significant. These are not Average Joes, BG, but people who holds advanced degrees and worked for many years in this field. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please hold off on the personal attacks (WP:NPA). I don't have any background in geology, and I'm happy to admit that. I do think this article does not add value to Wikipedia, as it is about a relatively insignificant event, and is only on Wikipedia because of the media frenzy the event has generated. Our opinions clearly differ on that point, and I think that is not likely to be resolved :) --BG (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but just where did I attack you? I think the exact opposite happened tonight, in that you attacked me. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We practically have every single tropical storm, hurricane, snow storm, drought, significant rain event, and major tornado that has occured since 2000 on Wikipedia. I don't see this occurance as any less than those (probably much more significant than a tropical storm that makes landfall, or a mild drought). Besides, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, you are right. And people use the encyclopedia to research events. When we are as comprehensive as possible, it makes researching easier. If someone is doing a study on recent California earthquakes, I can guarantee this one would be on their list....and if they used Wikipedia, this article would be particularly helpful. Rorry1 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Keep" - this is the best article I've seen on the quake - why would you throw away content that people have clearly worked hard on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.196.28.66 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This was certainly a notable event with a significant amount of media coverage. Gary King ( talk ) 07:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The story is developing still. The quake happened just a mere 12 hours ago, definitely needs more time to get more details on it. The strongest earthquake to strike a populated area of Southern California in more than a decade…. How is that not notable? Just because it was in California? Ridiculous. DiverseMentality  (Discuss it)  07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – I am borderline Los Angeles County/Orange County and felt this big time. Came as a shocker and as others have mentioned, biggest earthquake since Northridge, plus, per DiverseMentality. Just because it's a quake in California doesn't automatically make it non-notable. It's not your everyday thing. So, as I said, keep. –Victor (talk)  (works) 07:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I completely agree. Thats like saying "so what, Florida gets Hurricanes all the time....none of them are notable because its to be expected." Or "just another F4 for Oklahoma, doesn't need an article!" It does no harm to have the article....Wiki has an unlimited space capacity. I don't see the harm. Besides, the editors have done a great job on the page...arguably the best coverage of the quake (at least of what I have seen). Rorry1 (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is a notable earthquake, covered by the LA Times, NY Times, CNN, ABC, AP, and many other major news sources. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 08:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not every sub 6.0 earthquake needs an article. Of course there is going to be coverage in newspapers. Traffic accidents get newspaper coverage, but they don't need an article in Wikipedia. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 08:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete About 35 earthquakes occur daily on average according to National Earthquake Information Center. This earthquake was of a relatively low magnitude and resulted in no casualties. This particular earthquake was widely reported only in American news media outlets. Such earthquakes happen numerous times in Asia and I don't see articles on even 10% of them. This incident is newsworthy but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website. --Emperor Genius (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One can also go through this: and notice the number of earthquakes above 5.2 magnitude that have occured in the past 7 days. --Emperor Genius (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further comment to my keep !vote: Here's an analogy to music. The Sichuan earthquake is unquestionably significant. It received a frenzy of news coverage in its first few days and remained in many news sources for several months. Likewise, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was an accomplished musician in his time, and is still celebrated 200+ years after his death. On the other hand, most modern artists, even famous ones, probably won't endure. But does that mean that we should delete every single article on modern artists? No! -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 08:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad analogy. If a modern artist is not notable enough, then yes the related article has to go. Sichuan earthquake was of high magnitude, caused extensive property damage and human loss and received widespread global coverage. The concerned earthquake was of lower magnitude, caused no major property and human damage and has received widespread coverage only in American media sources. --Emperor Genius (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It actually isn't true that this quake only received widespread coverage in the American media. Yesterday it was a top story on BBC News and Die Welt (a German newspaper) in the hours after it occurred. Moncrief (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least for the time being. An earthquake in rather densely populated area, plus an attention was drawn to it in media (in the US and subsequently abroad). Not a big news, but a good place to collect upcoming information, if any. AlexNB 09:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been, and is, enough coverage of this earthquake to move it beyond the 'Routine news coverage' of WP:NOT. It is being covered internationally such as or . Here in the UK I had heard about the earthquake off wikipedia before seeing this AFD. Davewild (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Spend some time actually creating articles rather than wasting so much energy trying to delete them.  The earthquake is notable and is widely covered in the world media.  Scanlan (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The event of the Earthquake has probably not concluded yet. The earthquake thus far is still notable and is news as it is a serious event for California. We should consider ourselves fortunate that no one lost their lives to the earthquake, and not to use such a miracle as grounds for deletion. DynamoJax (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete because it is less than richter 6, not very many casualties, not very much damage, not much disruption of life. 70.55.87.79 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact, if we intend to set minimum standards for notability in earthquakes, we might want to codify how much damage is enough, or what magnitude qualifies, etc. An issue for another day, perhaps. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Provisional Keep. I acknowledge that we're not wikinews, nor are we charged with anything other than getting it right. However, there is obviously interest in this subject and this event, with hundreds of edits to the article since it was created. The version at the time of nomination (37 minutes after the article was started) is here, and weighs in at 1,586 bytes. It's expanded significantly since then, and I would speculate that more information (and references) are forthcoming. The fact is, we don't have a criteria for notability in earthquakes - how much damage, magnitude, deaths, etc. - so there is no criteria to point to and say "This one was too small". The fact that it's receiving such a huge rush of coverage would indicate that someone out there thinks it noteworthy enough to document. Until more information is known, I'd recommend keeping the article. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Well, the article passes WP:N and WP:V, but I am really just not sure if it passes WP:NOT, it appears to be pass all other guidelines except for WP:NOT which IMO it BARELY passes, but after taking a look at the article, and seeing that it is reasonably well written and well sourced I believe that the article is fine to leave and let develop, also because this is the first somewhat major earthquake to hit the area in a while also contributes to its long term notability. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was all out on the news, and some earthquakes in Ontario and Illinois that have no deaths also have articles. There was some localized panic, and a water main break, and even being in Canada, we had live coverage of the quake on Canadian news stations only an hour after the quake. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Decent sized earthquakes in California tend to create lots of media coverage when they happen, but ones that didn't create injuries/damage are events that tend to be forgotten about. In fact if you did another AFD of this article in 6 months time, I would guess no one would really be bothered about it and it would be deleted. I'd only say keep because it did get a bit of news coverage here in the UK, although most likely because it happened near LA. RapidR (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Give it a fucking chance, Sceptre. That means "a lot more than 40 minutes after article creation". Strong Keep and revisit in two months if you feel like creating a needlessly large amount of pointless discussion, which wouldn't be the first, or even fiftieth time. SashaNein (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, absolutely. Something does not have to kill people to be notable. We are not paper; we can devote articles to every hurricane, we can devote articles to every plane crash, and we can devote articles to every large earthquake in a heavily populated area. --Golbez (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per RapidR, AH1, Mifter, UltraExactZZ, Davewild, King of Hearts, DiverseMentality, and Gary King. Cliff smith (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment in addition to my keep...waaay above Can we stop this thing all ready? There is overwhelming concensus, even by some of the opposers, to wait for a couple weeks of months and see how this plays out. Deleting an article when it is first written is not exactly the smartest idea - you have to give it the benifit of the doubt and see how everything unrolls. --haha169 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perversely, per my reading of NOT#NEWS, this should be deleted until some time has passed and it's shown that the event has lasting newsworthiness. But yes, the majority of !votes do favor keeping the article.  No one's accusing anyone else of not being able to count. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I was just suggesting the closure of this deletion request and to tell the nominator to put this up again if he disagrees with the article's notability in a few weeks. --haha169 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep.The earthquake was really just a few minutes ago. You people need to learn to edit correctly. There's nothing special about a snow storm that hit Ohio in 2006 or 2007 and one in 2008 but yet, there's an article. Sorry for being mean. Haha. But yeah, let is play a bit first. Keep as a stub at least.

Sorry, I'm new to this aspect (editing and discussion) of Wikipedia. But I am very well acquainted with Southern California earthquakes, the Emergency Response systems within California, and the accuracy or lack there of in the media following these events. First, I would like to say that yes this is important enough to keep as an article. It is an event that disrupted the daily operations of a major metropolitan area. No, it was not the "BIG ONE" but it was one. It should stay as it is now, Chino Hills Earthquake as it is with the North Ridge, the 1987 Witter Narrows, and 1971 San Fernando (Sylmar) earthquake, all of which shook the Los Angeles area. Anyone who knows Los Angeles, it is make up of many smaller area. As far as the content of this article, it seems to be siting many out of area media outlets. Reports come in from many sources most of which can never be confirmed. Points such as Disneyland being evacuated, I find very questionable. I don't doubt that it was reported, I doubt that the entire park was evacuated. During past events, individual rides are evacuated, inspected then reopened. It will often take a day or two to sort this stuff out. And I caution the use of such reports in what is meant to be a factual article. As more information comes out of the USGS, The Los Angeles OEM, and other official sources, it should be recorded here. Unfortunately, I am not in the Los Angeles area at this time, and I can not accurately report on this event. I like many others have to filter out what the news is reporting and reports from family members who are in the area, all of whom came through this event with only minor damage. In the days to come, I will continue to follow this event and start to contact friends and colleagues who are "in the know", but right now they have more important things to do such as take care of inspecting buildings, roadways, rides, and overseeing the implementation of emergency procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.201.109 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting synthesis. Good job - and I understand. However, at this point, we use the citations that we can. --haha169 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This was a tiny earthquake.  It was not notable.  We are not the USGS.  We are not the stinking newspaper.  THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA FOR CHRISSAKE.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the simplest reason for "delete" I have read so far. Please refer to the discussion above, and leave a more engaging comment. Also, see the link about how Wikipedia is not paper. --haha169 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, this was not a tiny earthquake. Cliff smith (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that its ok to have an article for every damn fire, tropical storm, drought, snow storm, excessive rain event, tornado, cold spell, heat spell, etc. that has occured in the US since 2000, but we cant have an article on an earthquake that was felt by 21,000,000 people and is the largest quake to hit the populized Los Angeles area since before the first home computers!!! I cant believe you people some times. If this article is deleted, I will personally nominate all those stupid weather articles about weather events that are much less significant than this one that have occured in the US. This is not a news story...its not some little tropical storm that hit Florida....this was a big earthquake that shook a very vulnerable area. Obviously some of you here think it was small because you weren't in it, or were more than 15 miles from its epicenter so it didn't feel strong to you. 75.43.198.233 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, everyone needs to have some tea and calm down. First, every user is entitled to their opinion; do not call their rationale "simple", as some may take that the wrong way. And also, for the IP, "big" is subjective. While you consider it big, I don't. Furthermore, tropical storms are much different than earthquakes: one deals with clouds while other deals with plates. Also, keep in mind this is not a ballot, vote, or anything of the sort. We're not a decmocracy, and an admin will make his decision based on the arguments presented, not the amount for or against. CL — 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a better example. Why is there an article on every Simpsons and Family Guy episode, but not one on this? The answer: Because the had more time to develop. You have got to give this article a chance. This article isn't un-notable, it needs time to expand. The article is already a day old and still getting edit conflicts. People are working on it - so next time, check the article's status and read the previous discussions before saying something. --haha169 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If there are any administrators reading this (who haven't voted), can you let us know, please, your rationale for not closing this discussion yet? It's time. Really. Moncrief (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are still delete arguments popping up, so you can't close this until it's run its full course. See my last two sentences above. CL — 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love for someone to answer a question I asked above, which is: How does this article weaken Wikipedia? How would it stregthen Wikipedia to delete it? Moncrief (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why do we hold AfDs? Scratch that, there are articles that do weaken the Wiki in the long run, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere as to where we stop. Anyway, I've seen articles that, as you say, don't weaken the Wiki to keep or strengthen it to delete, but they get deleted anyway. There are boundaries as to what gets kept and not. Obviously, the majority believes that it should be kept, and there are few that want to say "Sayonara" (which I'm starting to feel guilty about since so much work has been put into this article). But, in the end, it is up to the admin. The admin will take all arguments into consideration and then make a decision. But until that happens, let's get editing. The outcome of this AfD will not affect the cure for cancer. CL — 18:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can think of many, many articles that weaken Wikipedia. This is not one of them. Moncrief (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This made international news, was compared against the larger earthquakes the United States has felt, despite registering little damage. I believe it will most certainly not be lost by history and is relevant and notable (and well referenced) in this encyclopedia. --Allstar86 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Wikipedia is a source for many people for history and information. Wikipedia shouldn't be the only website to not have information of this earthquake. You guys will look stupid. Also, at least keep it as a stub. We need some information on what happened yesterday, not just a red link in the list of Earthquakes. Keep it. --24.95.62.153 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (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.