Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Vancouver Island 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   merge to List of earthquakes in Canada. v/r - TP 15:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Vancouver Island earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:NOTNEWS Non-notable earthquake that caused little damage and no casualties Mikenorton (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect if no detail is lost. Per a cursory reading of the WP:EARTHQUAKE guidelines, which seem reasonable, and the article (which is quite reasonable too), a stand-alone article does not seem appropriate at this time. (add.) I'd be happiest with an in-between solution where the merged article is a grouping of short entries like this article is currently. I see where some detail is lost with short entries on List of earthquakes in Canada. On the other hand Mikenorton has done enough work for free so I'm not asking him or anyone else to do it. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Earthquakes in 2011. Although this is geologically unusual for an earthquake of this size to have occurred in this region, there was no impact from it, and hence it does not need an article, although it may borderline meet WP:GNG.  HurricaneFan 25  22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An alternative redirect target is List of earthquakes in Canada, assuming that I get around to turning it into a proper table with a 'comments' column, which could carry all the content here pretty much (like in List of earthquakes in Greece). Mikenorton (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's important that we keep the information about the geology of the actual earthquake intact somewhere alongside a citation, ie. that it occurred in a near-surface fault separate from the actual Cascadia subduction zone. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started to expand the List of earthquakes in Canada (in one of my sandboxes) with a comments column where this information could be put - should be ready later today or tomorrow. Mikenorton (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that's done, and I've added that one detail and changed it from transform to strike-slip as it wasn't on the plate boundary. Mikenorton (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I am the Wikipedian who started this article - yet the person who nominated this article for deletion did not notify me of this discussion. I wonder why not? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not doing that Ottawahitech, I think that this is only the second article that I've taken to AfD and I thought that putting a message on the talk page and the tag on the article page was enough - having re-read the AfD rules I see that notifying the article creator is encouraged, so again sorry. Mikenorton (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for explaining.
 * Wikipedia is losing editors at an alarming rate. My pet theory is that a lot of it is happening because of aggressive deletions  of articles – many times without notification. After all Wikipedians are volunteers who are not rewarded financially for their work. It is a shame to slight them further by deleting material they spent time on.
 * Sorry for using this AFD as a soapbox, but I really don’t know how else  to raise awareness at Wikipedia, other than at individual discussions of articles that  I have started when they are being nominated for deletion (several such articles have been deleted with no notification). Ottawahitech (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For some larger articles it would impractical to notify everyone involved, which might be why it is "encouraged" not mandatory. Still, for the very reasons you stated above, when possible I think it's good courtesy/practice. Again, you and AstroHurricane001 did a very good job on this, which is why I thought it was appropriate to put an AfD notice on your talk pages. I agree with your comments, and also appreciate Mikenorton's as well. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottawahitech, try a discussion about your theory at Wikipedia Talk:AFD. For quite sometime I have been against notibilty and other rather dumb policies on Wikipedia. Earthquakes are not news, they are geologic events created by movements of the Earth. It dosen't matter how small the article is it is still useful in some ways.  Volcano guy  18:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Earthquakes are not news, they are geologic events created by movements of the Earth. Heh, good point Volcanoguy. However I don't think it's a question of having information about this event in the encyclopedia, as much as formatting. Should it be in a stand-alone article, or part of a larger grouping of similar events? LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to the suggestion to direct discussion to Wikipedia Talk:AFD made by  Volcano  guy : Someone already beat me to it (Wikipedia_talk:AFD), but it does not look like anything came out of that elaborate and thoughtful  discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The earthquake was the strongest in the Vancouver Island region since 2004 and prompted some scientists and residents to further examine the risks associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The West Coast of North America (California to BC) had seen a relative lull in strong earthquake activity since probably the Eureka earthquake in 2010. Perhaps there is some intrinsic notability here. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 19:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AH1, do you have a source for the review of seismic hazard that you mentioned? I did some searching around but couldn't find anything - it would make a difference regarding notability. Mikenorton (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep 6.4 earthquake seems significant; there seem to be multiple reliable sources; and how does this not meet inclusion criteria exactly? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the thing with tropical cyclone AfDs. The tropical cyclone could be strong (e.g. Category 4 on the SSHS) but it didn't cause any damage. Most news reports of these kind of storms basically repeat what the NHC says, and it's never anything exceptional. I couldn't find any substantial reports of damage for this quake.  HurricaneFan 25  14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the earthquake notability guidelines (disclosure: I came up with them) it states that "being mentioned in the mainstream media is not in itself evidence of notability, particularly if the news reports are only during the few days immediately after the event". Mikenorton (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2011 (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.