Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Potomac-Shenandoah 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   delete. Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Potomac-Shenandoah earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No fatalities, no big damage or injuries, only 3.6 MW - not notable. Hundreds of such earthquakes happen on earth and they don't have an article - so why this one has?  Kubek15  write / sign 16:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, A minor earthquake by magnitude but a record for the Washington, D.C. area, quite a deal of media coverage as well, many being listed in the reference section. --Taktser 17:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned in the media for a couple of days means no more that this is just another ephemeral news event, not something to have an article about. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, a notable event, definitely. Also per Takster. Tyrol5   [Talk]  18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How can it be notable if just in Poland, every year there is such an earthquake at least 10 times a year, so it's like more than 1000 times a year in whole world, and THIS ONE is notable, and the rest - not?  Kubek15  write / sign 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, If it was in California or Japan or some other place that commonly has earth quakes it'd be one thing. I read somewhere that seimologist were unaware this fault was cabable of still producing one this size. I expect more sources revolve on the scientific aspects of this to come in the next years. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When the papers get written then write an article about the fault, there will never be enough reason to have an article on this minor tremor. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  — Jujutacular  T · C 21:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - While it was a somewhat unusual event for the region, a 3.6 earthquake is scarcely noticeable. 35 earthquakes larger than this one happened yesterday (7/19/10) in Alaska alone .  Takster indicates above that the earthquake was a record for the region, but considering that records have only been kept in this area since 1974 (36 years), the fact that "it's a record" doesn't really mean much.    Snotty Wong   chat 22:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. At 3.6, there's no damage or lasting significance and it's barely noticeable; it might deserve a mention in the seismic region article if it exists.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although only very small, the earthquake is still notable for the area. Justmeagain83 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A minor earthquake with no notability, it fails to come close the recently proposed 'guidelines for notability' on WikiProject:Earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial earthquake, not worth an article or even a merge. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW for those who insist that minor earthquakes are notable if they occur someplace that doesn't get many earthquakes: Thunderstorms are unusual here in San Diego where I live. They almost always make the news when they happen, and everybody talks about them for days. In other parts of the country, thunderstorms are an everyday occurrence. Would a San Diego thunderstorm be worthy of a Wikipedia article, on account of its rarity? That's pretty much the argument that people make when they say "well, yes, it was a minor earthquake, but it was unusual for the area." For that matter, it snowed here once, back in the 1940s - up to an inch in places. That inch of snow would certainly be worth an article, 1948 San Diego snowstorm, per the standards that are being proposed here for earthquakes. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, per MelanieN. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are too many earthquakes to ever write an article for each one, so there must be standards. This earthquake is tiny; less than a one kiloton explosion. It didn't do anything noteworthy, and the article should be deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's verifiable and there's obviously enough sources to make an article.--Scott Mac 15:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS as noted above and, though meets WP:GNG, lacks "enduring historical significance" to meet WP:EVENT ("Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect."). Novaseminary (talk) 16:48, 28 July 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.