Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Lilbourn, Missouri 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. The delete camp does go into more detail about why the sources are inadequate to establish inclusion against WP:NOTNEWS Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

2019 Lilbourn, Missouri Earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was originally proposed for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, but the article creator objected. The reason for the original proposal still stands. A minor earthquake with no damage or casualties is not even remotely a notable WP:EVENT. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Easy delete here. Very minor earthquake, no fatalities, no injuries, no serious damage, I can't find any sources referencing this beyond the date that it happened.  It's just a very minor earthquake, and those don't deserve articles. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * KeepMeets WP:GNG. A topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources.Watchbotx (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * DELETE - A sure Delete for me. It is estimated that around 500,000 earthquakes occur each year, detectable with current instrumentation. About 100,000 of these can be felt. Magnitude of less than 4 is minor and minor earthquakes occur nearly constantly around the world. Also no fatalities or impacts. TJ aka 08:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) (talk)
 * Keep There's no question it has enough sources to meet WP:GNG]. If 500k other earthquakes get news coverage, they can have articles too.  Wikipedia isn't out of disk space.  XeroxKleenex (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:XeroxKleenex - There is a myth that Wikipedia deletes articles to conserve disk space. Deleting articles does not conserve disk space anyway, because deleted articles are available for undeletion by administrators, and can be viewed by administrators.  So notability rather than disk space is the issue.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The notability test for an earthquake is not just "has sources", because every earthquake always has sources: if it's felt by the general public at all, then one or more local news stories will always exist about that, and even if it isn't felt by the general public, the National Earthquake Center's database (which records every earthquake that happens at all) will always still have an entry. But our role here is not to simply replicate the federal earthquake database by indiscriminately maintaining an article about every single earthquake that occurs — our role is to maintain articles about earthquakes that can show a genuine, ten-year test passing claim of significance (major damage, significant loss of human life, an unusual new type of earthquake activity that generates special study by seismologists, etc.), not just every earthquake that has ever happened at all. GNG is not just "count up the sources and keep anything that hits or exceeds two": it also takes into account factors like the depth of the coverage, the geographic range of the coverage, and the context of what the topic is getting covered for, and some types of coverage simply don't count for as much as some other types. It's the same as the reasons why unelected political candidates are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because a handful of local campaign coverage exists; bands are not exempted from having to pass NMUSIC just because they have a couple of hits in their local hometown media about them accomplishing things of purely local interest; high school athletes are not exempted from having to pass our notability standards for sportspeople just because they had a couple of pieces of human interest coverage in their local media about their recovery from an injury; and on and so forth: GNG evaluates a lot more than just the raw number of footnotes that happen to be present. An article can have 30 footnotes and still fail GNG if those 30 footnotes all fail one or more of the depth, range and context tests. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The single Earthquake might not be enough for an article, but as it was the strongest earthquake in an 18 earthquake series, the name/page should be changed to that series. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. A small swarm of earthquakes barely strong enough to be felt still isn't notable. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ミラP 15:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ミラP 15:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. While it received attention in multiple sources, it fails WP:SUSTAINED, which is also a requirement to meet WP:N. See also WP:NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Relatively minor earthquake. This is an example of why events have to have lasting coverage, as most events like this will garner local attention at the time of the event.  Not mention at New Madrid Seismic Zone, and a merge to there would provide undue coverage of the event, so delete. Hog Farm (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The statement from Hog Farm is incorrect. Earlier (January 24th) I did connect New Madrid Seismic Zone To this article.  So a merge should still be considered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This earthquake is only mentioned in the "See also" section of links; we would need a mention in the article text itself. A redirect to a simple article link in the "See also" would do nothing to help our readers, and since all of the individual earthquakes and series of earthquakes mentioned at the NMSZ page seem to be rated 5.0 and above, it would seem WP:UNDUE to merge to there.  Too many earthquakes happen at that fault line to list them all on the main article. Hog Farm (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As others have said, pretty much every earthquake that gets felt, end even those that aren't, will be recorded by the USGS and will likely make it into local news stories. This sort of event is pretty WP:ROUTINE. For the same reason we don't create an article for every EF0 tornado that knocks down a few trees or every car accident that causes a traffic jam. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Lilbourn, Missouri as tehre is not enough notability for a standalone article, but it was important for Lilbourn, Missouri. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't look to have been important for Lilbourn either. The only news report about it is one line here, and Lilbourn is the scene of similar quakes very frequently, none of which get an article or a section in the main article, or even much attention. This is a purely routine occurrence, not something exceptional (not as an earthquake, and not as part of the history of Lilbourn). Merging it to Lilbourn would be a case of WP:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No damage or lasting effects. A lot of Lilbourn residents probably won't even remember it in a few years. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA. This minor earthquake appears to have only attracted routine coverage in local media – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2020 (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.