Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bloomington 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    Redirected to San Jacinto Fault and closed as moot. There seems to be fairly broad agreement that this information belongs there rather than in a separate article, and it has been merged. I see no reason to erase the history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 Bloomington earthquake

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

Questionable notability; although this was considered a moderate earthquake by the USGS, is every moderate earthquake that causes no damage worthy of an article? This one fails WP:NOTE because it violates WP:NOT. Wikinews would be far more appropriate. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Gmatsuda (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bloomington since there's not enough information to sustain a separate entry. P.S. There is such a thing as transwikification, a process in which the article would be moved from one wiki to another prior to speedy deletion. If you perform that, you don't need an AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A tremor that was 4.5 on the Richter scale is considered pretty light. "There are not yet any reports of damages or injuries."  No?  Keep looking, maybe a glass of red wine tipped over on a white carpet.  Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete . A 4.5 earthquake in the middle of an earthquake-prone zone is not a major geological event, it is a soon-forgotten news story, even on the local scale. Although 4.5 does not seem far away from 6.0 earthquakes which cause damage, remember that the Richter scale is logarithmic, and a difference in 1.5 means the quake is 160 times less powerful. With no damage reported, I think this is less notable than a car accident. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging with the fault line looks like a reasonable course of action. The relevance of the event is tied to the fault line, not to a town in earthquake prone California. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, apparently, to either Bloomington, California - or better, if it is ascertained which fault caused the earthquake, and we have an article on that fault, to the article on the fault. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to San Jacinto Fault, the fault that caused the earthquake at issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added most of the text of this article to a new section "Events" in the San Jacinto Fault article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is the essence of a local news item. A 4.5 quake causing no damage or injury is just a recurring event in a quake prone zone.  I do not support a merge as the quake is essentially some trivia in the Bloomington article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - with the source identifying fault which generated the quake, a merge to the article on the fault makes sense, and the information wou;dn't be trivia in that article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: After confirming that this earthquake did indeed occur on the San Jacinto Fault, I support merging this article into that one. If that is to be the case, I would be happy to withdraw this AfD, if that's necessary. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to San Jacinto Fault. SMSpivey (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2009 (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.