Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Honshu earthquake (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Honshu earthquake
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I know there's been a previous nomination. Standards have changed since then. There are different precedents. Also, IMO the reasons cited in the previous nomination's keep !votes aren't valid. Aditya Ex Machina  15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- For my reasoning see the previous AFD. The nominator may not feel it holds up, but I disagree. A 6.6 earthquake is past the threshold of being a simple news story and puts it into the realm of encyclopedic event. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, Umbralcorax's reasoning is that an earthquake of 6.6 magnitude passes some arbitrary number that he's decided makes an earthquake automatically notable. There is no such consensus. Discussions on Wikiproject Earthquake indicate (but have not yet finally decided) that earthquakes lesser than 7.0 magnitude are not inherently notable. Aditya Ex Machina  22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Egads! I'd say delete but it appears that this article could be rewritten.  Did you know that there have been several much larger earthquakes that have struck Honshu (for context, the island on which most of Japan's big cities, including Tokyo, are located) since the last discussion?  .  You wouldn't know it from the article here.  Looking at the Template: Earthquakes in 2010 and Category:2010_earthquakes illustrates to me why the current system is so "f***ed up".  In trying to write about as many quakes as possible, and giving them scientific sounding names that people are unlikely to know, they practically hide the major events.  One can see the deadliest earthquakes in April .  If you were looking for the one in China that killed thousands of people, you would have difficulty locating in categories (unless you know that it's referred to by the seismogeeks as the "2010 Yushu earthquake").  It's on the template, equal there with all the other "today's tremor" articles, and the only evidence of its significance on the template is a little symbol "†".  The essential idea of an encyclopedia is that people who want to find out more about something can refer to it and find what they were looking for, and you don't accomplish that by making a page and then walking away from it.  Mandsford 20:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the article's creator. This was a major 6.5-magnitude earthquake, and it caused an injury. Wikipedia has articles about much smaller earthquakes, such as the 2010 Pico Rivera earthquake, which, with a magnitude of 4.4, was 100 times weaker. The Honshu earthquake was also listed here as a 2010 significant earthquake by the USGS. Av9 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. USGS's criteria of inclusion is lower than Wikipedia's. Aditya Ex Machina  22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see the 2010 Pico Rivera quake article get nominated as well, and it probably will as we review each of the many quakepages that have been cranked out in the first five months of this year. There are other ways to refer to earthquakes than making a new page every time one happens and then hoping that it won't get deleted.  To Av9, I say that you can be a leader in creating pages for the various zones of the world that either are "earthquake prone" or where quakes are less often registered, and add each quake to those pages as it occurs.  Some significant events would be spun out as articles of their own, to be sure, but the information would be more likely to be preserved if it was listed by general location (an article on earthquakes on the island of Honshu itself would be an example) rather than by year.   When it comes down to "all or nothing", nothing seems to be the choice more often, but even if it was 50/50, half of the work is for naught.  I think that you could add to Wikipedia's knowledge about where earthquakes happen all over the world... but this method clearly is not working.  Mandsford 02:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. With just one injury caused, this was a pretty forgettable earthquake by Japanese standards, and the name "2010 Honshu Earthquake" appears to have been made up by the article creator. The official documentation cited refers to it as "福島県沖を震源とする地震" ("an earthquake centred on Fukushima Bay"), so it appears it was not a significant enough event to actually receive an official name. --DAJF (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT--70.82.131.148 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 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.