Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Eureka 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 Substantial consensus for notability and keep Mike Cline (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Eureka earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

AFD nominated by an IP who can't create AFD pages. I have no comment on the validity of the nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no one killed or seriously hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.109.73 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @960  · 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @960  · 22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite clearly a notable event with plenty of WP:RS.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because no one died doesn't mean it's not notable, and I would argue that earthquakes are inherently notable due to their relative rarity (<10 or 15 big ones a year, generally) C628 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 6.5 is not a small earthquake, and there was plenty of coverage from around the world, not just the US. Plus it was the largest quake to affect California in over 6 years, and the largest to affect Eureka since 1992. RapidR (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think a thousand 6.5s occur per year. The point that occurred in the U.S. doesn't mean it is notable-- DA I (Δ) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There were some minor injuries, so it's perhaps more important than the usual CNN/Fox tremor. However, there's no historical significance demonstrated to this one.  I think the article will, ultimately, be kept, because it passes the two tests that many Wikipedia editors find important: (1) Did it happen in a year that begins with "2"? and (2) Did it happen in the United States?  No surprise that it got mentioned on January 9.  It would be surprising if it got mentioned in February.  Remember the 1953 earthquake near Algiers where "dozens of people suffered minor injuries"?  Neither does anyone else. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was stronger than the second earthquake off Eureka, and plenty of earthquakes as weak as mag. 3 - 5 get Wikipedia articles in the Central United States and the United Kingdom, especially in Illinois because they are relatively rare and are associated with other boundaries such as the New Madrid Fault. This particular earthquake is not particularly rare, but recent earthquakes in this area where activity was low previously would indicate that the region is getting more active, and we should have enough coverage of this on Wikipedia as it occurs. I would say that only about 100 earthquakes occur each year around the world that are magnitude 6.5 or stronger, and of course we don't have an article on every one of them but this quake affected a populated area that is expecting quakes in the future, so a quake of this size is relatively notable. If a M6.5 occured off Honshu, or the Dominican Republic, Portugal, Turkey, Karachi, Kuwait, etc., or especially in an American area with few earthquakes such as Yellowstone, Oklahoma, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, New York, Boston etc. with no deaths, it would probably still get a Wikipedia article. Simply occuring in the US or in 2010 does not make the event non-notable, and in the 21st century we simply have more data available to record earthquakes so an article would be easier to write. Notability is somewhat subjective, especially for specific events that affected populations such as this. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though it is rather short, this article could easily be expanded. --12george1 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2010 earthquakes -- DA I (Δ) 10:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This earthquake is sufficiently notable from its size. Mikenorton (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. 6.5 Mw is notable when it happens in a populated area. Unlike a quake of, say 4.0 Mw, a large quake has lasting scientific and historical significance. Regarding various numbers that have been suggested in this thread, the USGS estimates that 75 quakes of 6.5 or greater occur worldwide each year.-- Wine Guy ~Talk  01:36, 7 March 2010 (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.