Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Christchurch 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. The article's subject is found to be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Christchurch earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of notability Wykx  (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with Mikenorton "This earthquake caused no deaths, injuries or major damage. Comparing it against the earthquake notability guidelines, it's marginal at best." Wykx (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep: minor damage with liquefaction and cliffs that collapsed is not common in christchurch--Planecrashexpert (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Weak delete - The lack of significant damage (apart from the cliff fall) and no injuries sustained makes me lean towards deletion (obviously with the salient details captured in the list of earthquakes in New Zealand). Mikenorton (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep - Earthquakes do not have to cause loss of life to be notable. See 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake for example. While obviously not the most news-grapping earthquake to happen this year it still received significant coverage and caused some damage. Notable. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep While the New Zealand earthquake mentioned here did not do as much widespread damage as the 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake, where I believe this article is notable is in the impact the earthquake had on New Zealand's landmass. For example, it caused a noted cliff to collapse. Notable, and worth keeping on Wikipedia. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: For some reason, the notability was questioned on the article's talk page immediately before putting it to AfD. There are quite a few editors who have commented on the talk page, but who have not commented here as yet.  Schwede 66  18:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping Irasnz and Typhoon2013, you are the last two editors who commented on the article's talk page, but have not commented here; you might want to do so.  Schwede 66  23:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Regarding the earthquake notability guidelines, it says on that page that it "would normally be expected to match one or preferably more of the criteria listed". The intensity felt in the central city was VIII (the guidelines require VII). It's not magnitude 7.0 (far from it), but it's part of a swarm. Where the notability guidelines are lacking in my opinion is that it doesn't take into account the area affected. It's a sizeable city that is affected, and this impact is something that should also be taken into account. The same earthquake in a part of New Zealand where hardly anybody lives - who cares? There are a lot of people living in the Christchurch (360,000) and that, combined with the fact that this has been going on for five and a half years by now, has caused quite a bit of interest in international media. I've had a look last night and there is a large number of newspapers that didn't just mention this in a couple of lines, but had quite a bit of reporting, and most of them included a photo or two. I shall add the international reaction when I get the time.  Schwede 66  18:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge: While I agree (as a local) that this article alone is unnecessary, some of this information should be moved to another page. It is nevertheless a reasonably major event in the 2010 aftershock sequence, occurring years after the main event. So far, this aftershock hasn't got even a single mention in the aftershock section of the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake article, when many other ML 5.0+ events with little damage or notability have gained a mention. Alternatively, given there have been other major aftershocks without Wikipedia articles of their own that have either caused major damage or else imperilled lives(I'm thinking Boxing Day 2010, December 23rd 2011, plus possibly this earthquake), how about creating a Wikipedia article on some of these more major aftershocks? (And I apologize for initially posting this in the wrong section.) 125.238.116.151 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good on you for mastering to post something to WP; it must be quite daunting how it all works. You raise the same question that is already on the talk page of the article itself, and that is whether we shouldn't have standalone articles for the Boxing Day earthquake, and the two December 2011 events. I agree that those are notable events and if the community's decision is to keep this article, I'd be happy to work on those other articles.  Schwede 66  23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm borderline. This article Psychological shock follows quake (15 Feb) argues for a psychological link to 2011 Christchurch earthquake (see 2011 Christchurch earthquake - A merge to an "aftershocks" section under 2011 Christchurch earthquake would be preferable to deletion. -- Callinus (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the event is significant in itsself for an article given its size, location, and impact. NealeFamily (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep: I think the proximity to Christchurch, the magnitude and the MMI is reason enough. ThE~fUtUrE~2014 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep: So as I said in the article's talk page, atm I wanted to keep it. I stated: "Despite the article is not at good quality, adding more information and major fixing-ups should already make the article to good. Yes I know that the earthquake is relatively minor, but imo adding this into the List of NZ earthquakes article is great. However, if nothing happens in the future (anything related to this or future "great" earthquakes) and the article is still below the standards, deleting this article is necessary." As of now, I have been updating with Geonet quakes and have measure some moderate earthquakes after February 14 (especially on the 18th), also an article states "because of this, Christchurch might be seeing another great earthquake by next year", so therefore, keep atm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep: As I stated on the article's talk page: "It could meet the criteria listed in earthquake notability guidelines as it is a) part of "a swarm of events" and b) the intensity was at VII on the Mercalli scale .  Also, with the 5th anniversary of the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake 8 days after the quake listed in this article, it has a social impact and relevance in that regard.  In addition, the June 2011 Christchurch earthquake is a part of the same swarm and only one person died (an elderly man who fell over) as a result but it has its own article.  Then again, the December 2011 Christchurch earthquake redirects to the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake despite two (if not more) of the quakes on that day also met the intensity requirement (albeit with no deaths I am aware of)  .  So maybe some consistency needs to applied with which of these articles stays or goes, as, in my mind, they are all significant parts of the "swarm" we are experiencing here." --IrasNZ (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Class VIII earthquakes are notable. James500 (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2016 (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.