Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Kamchatka 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 Kamchatka earthquakes. There seems to be some agreement that merging 2006 Kamchatka earthquakes into the same article would be appropriate, but we can't necessarily consider this discussion as evidence of consensus for that action as well.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 15:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

2020 Kamchatka earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log )

ITEXISTS, so what? Yes it is a large earthquake (largest since ...), but without any lasting impacts whatsoever, it does not need an article. Also, this event was first published under 2020 Kuril Islands earthquake before being turned to a redirect. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 02:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's a well written article that seems to be notable enough. I see absolutely no pressing reason to get rid of it.  Also, there's no special notability criteria for earthquakes, but my personal impression is anything 7.5 or higher should be presumed to be notable.  It's a major geological event irrespective of where it happens. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You're not getting the point, Wikipedia is not a catalog for every 7.5+ around the world regardles of if nothing happened. There really isn't anything notable about this event without any impacts or scientific interest. See Notability (earthquakes) for a guide. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 04:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. The opinions shared in the essay seem to mirror my gut instinct: "M 7+ earthquakes are probably notable, but should meet additional criteria."  The earthquake seems notable enough based on sources (i.e. ), notable enough based on magnitude (7.5), well written, and absolutely no pressing need to get rid of it.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "should meet additional criteria" which it does not. I haven't come across any news reports other than ohh, a 7.5 stuck offshore, watch out for a (damaging) tsunami (that didn't manifest). There are reports of a small tsunami and nothing else so it might as well be included in the List of earthquakes in 2020. This is not something a non-earthquake expert would remember simply because it exists. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 05:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * News reports of the earthquake and resulting tsunami from RS would seem to suffice to establish notability. But on top of that, at minimum, there is one published in-depth scientific analysis:
 * The 25 March 2020 MW 7.5 Paramushir, northern Kuril Islands earthquake and major (MW ≥ 7.0) near-trench intraplate compressional faulting -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No lasting impact is the point .. which you clearly don't get. A published study and shallow news stories does not establish notability whatsoever; this event was probably notable only on that day it occurred ... there are no extended coverage in the weeks and months after that. I'll just ping for their thoughts on this. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 12:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also just because it is well written doesn't mean it's notable. There simply should not be an article for this earthquake for its lack of significant coverage. period. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 12:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Being the subject of articles all over the world plus at least one scientific study is significant coverage. In terms of WP:LASTING one major earthquake on a fault changes the nature of the fault and CAN have an impact on the next major earthquake.  Do you disagree?  -- Bob drobbs (talk)
 * Coverage of an earthquake without any lasting impact in major news agencies is not notable, neither is one published scientific study. To answer the question, every earthquake makes another likely; either on the same fault or the faults nearby. But no other earthquakes have occurred in the immediate area, even so, this event still fails the basic notability criteria for inclusion. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 13:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To me international coverage, national coverage, local coverage, plus multiple in-depth analyses confer basic notability. But let me ask you another question.  If there was a M 9.0 earthquake tomorrow on the same fault, would a bunch of people want to refer to this article?  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, a bunch of people (the general public, I assume) wouldn't refer to this article. A 7.5 south of the Kamchatka Peninsula isn't going to be remembered by non-earthquake experts, even if a 9.0 follows-up. Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 22:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree then. I was in a 6.9 earthquake.  I have interest in all earthquakes that are ~20x more powerful than that, doubly so if they end up being the precursor to an even larger quake. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: It may be well written but it does not justify it being significant. No one was afflicted and has not brought up any scientific significance thus immediately making it not suitable for having its own article. --Moctiwiki (Moctiwiki) 13:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be some scientific significance in the study I listed above:
 * "'We examine the rupture of this event and consider it in the context of rare major (MW>7.0) near-trench intraplate compressional events along with updating a global compilation of temporal behavior of near-trench tensional and compressional activity relative to major interplate ruptures.'" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - No lasting impact - fails WP:EVENT. Mikenorton (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does WP:EVENT apply to natural disasters? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as is made clear when you read the guideline - it even uses earthquakes as examples. Mikenorton (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I missed that example.  But I'd say the article clearly meets WP:GNG based on articles written about it around the world, and in terms of WP:LASTING a 7.5 earthquake is a major shift in the earth's crust.  There are lasting impacts of that which might be only uncovered the next time there's a 8-9 earthquake in the region.  Yet again, I see no pressing need to remove this.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a couple of sources to the article which might help clarify notability. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment searching for the subject in Russian gives a mix of articles about various recent Kamchatka earthquakes. A couple discuss it in slightly more depth than "there was an earthquake", but not significantly so. Rusalkii  (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete – This was a low intensity event with no lasting impact. These very large/great shocks are a dime a dozen in that area. Dawnseeker2000  21:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I added a source assessment table. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete this please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanami-Sakura (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Bob drobbs assessment. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Very Insignificant Event That is not worthy of an article--Hanami-Sakura (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - The purpose of WP:EVENT is to clarify the tension between WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. There is little doubt that this earthquake meets GNG, but that is not in itself sufficient, it should also meet the requirements outlined in EVENT. When the latter refers to lasting impact it means on people not rocks and there is no evidence of that. Coverage should also persist beyond the normal news cycle. Of the sources listed in the table above, only one is not from the immediate period of the earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If a concert gets international coverage, we can't predict it will inspire something bigger. With earthquakes, we can predict the future. We know a larger quake will happen along this fault, in part triggered by this quake.  The only question is when.
 * WP:LASTING: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable ... It may take weeks or months [or years] to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:AfD debates (Science and technology)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Hoping to see some analysis of the source assessment prepared by Bob drobbs Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Moctiwiki. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of earthquakes in 2020. No lasting impact but it is well sourced and useful to be included in a list article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It appears that there are enough sources to make this article viable, but I think Polyamorph's idea is also acceptable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment on merge I've been arguing for keep, but I have no objections to a merge. However, I think the wrong target is suggested above:
 * There's an article for Kamchatka earthquakes which only discusses 3 earthquakes: 1737 (8.3?), 1923 (8.5?), 1952 (9.0). There's a "see also" for another 7.6 earthquake, 2006 Kamchatka earthquakes.  The 2006 earthquake is not well sourced, though there were a few dozen injuries.   So, if it's to be a merge, I'd suggest merging both the 2006 and 2020 earthquakes into the Kamchatka earthquakes page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly the most appropriate merge target in terms of title, but it will need to be extensively rewritten and expanded to explain all the different types of "Kamchatka earthquakes". Mikenorton (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per Bob drobbs above, as an alternate to deletion. Even if deleted, maybe because a closer goes by votes, there are other options. You can request userfication or you can place the sourced content in the article you choose and change your !vote to "Delete" as redundant. There is more than one way to skin a Martian.  --  Otr500 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to suitable higher level article. Not particularly opinionated as to which, but Kamchatka earthquakes sounds appropriate. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:59, 11 December 2021 (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.