Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Sparta 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Sparta earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor earthquake of no lasting importance. Zero casualties. Zero damage. Completely unnotable. Veggies (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Veggies (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - In spite of the absence of casualties and damage, this is still the largest earthquake to hit North Carolina in over a century, and the largest in the East Count in nearly a decade. I'd say this is pretty notable. Love of Corey (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant East Coast, my bad. Love of Corey (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that a minor quake may have set a record within an arbitrary political boundary does not give it any lasting impact. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Count the number of earthquakes that you remember from the East Coast with your hands. Love of Corey (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. My memory (as if that was rational criteria) is not how we determine notability on Wikipedia. -- Veggies (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>)
 * My memory is that the uniqueness of the event is a determining factor on notability at Wikipedia. Love of Corey (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This very clearly meets the WP:GNG as evidenced by the following articles:123456789
 * GNG is not the only standard at play here. This minor incident does not meet the criteria for events to justify a stand-alone article. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This tiny tremor is not conceivably the catalyst for anything. -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This was not a tiny tremor. A magnitude 3 or lower is a tiny tremor. This impacted the majority of the southeast. Webecoolalasdair (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All of these sources are easily accessible and visible in a quick Google News search of the article's title. AviationFreak 💬 22:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that the event was covered in the news. I'm disputing that this minor incident is notable. Remember that Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly Keep - 100,000+ people felt it, it was the strongest since 1916, and it's exceedingly rare. Although the damage is relatively mild (as of writing), it is still very notable. Also, earthquake articles shouldn't be deleted. They should be redirected to the List of earthquakes in 2020, in the case that it becomes more notable as time goes on. GyozaDumpling (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a redirect to list instead. It certainly doesn't merit a stand-alone article. -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I am the original creator of the page and a geologist. Earthquakes are rare in this part of the country, and therefore, when moderate sized events occur (such as a Mw 5.0 or greater) they should have their own article. It was widely felt, there is readily available public data to cite information from (especially from USGS), and numerous national news outlets reported it. This article complements, nicely, the 2011 Mineral earthquake in Virginia. I feel it should be kept. Bluesnote (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they should, but every topic has to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. I don't know of any notability guidelines that make any earthquakes 5.0+ notable. We'd probably have an earthquake article every day. -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that this earthquake is notable just because it's a M 5+. It's notable because it's exceedingly rare, sets a historical record, and was felt by hundreds of thousands of people. Although the magnitude plays a part in it's notability, it is obviously not the sole factor. Also, this section is for gaining consensus, not for you to argue every little comment justifying this article's preservation. GyozaDumpling (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum—according to USGS's PAGER as of this writing, approximately 35000 people had felt moderate or stronger shaking—intensities where the earthquake can cause structural damage. I will not argue against the rarity of the event as a factor of notability—however, in my opinion, the effects and aftermath of this event is not considered significant enough to support the notability clause. Tinh1000000 (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2020 — Until this event gains more scientific notability (like the 2011 Virginia earthquake) or prompts renewed, sustained discussion about mitigating future events within the Piedmont region, I agree that it is not notable enough to be a standalone article. Tinh1000000 (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarification—by scientific notability, I am referring to scholarly articles published on the subject of this specific event. Tinh1000000 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep As per above. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough as the state's strongest earthquake in more than a century. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exceptionally Strong Keep As a geology student with a dedicated passion towards earthquakes, I have personally studied extensively the effects of earthquakes in the eastern United States for years. As soon as I found out about the earthquake, I knew it would garner significant national media attention, which it has. Numerous national media sources (ABC, CBS, etc.) reported on this earthquake, and some still are. Scientific information is now beginning to be published about this earthquake, as it will for some time after. The earthquake caused significant damage in the town of Sparta and the surrounding region, and is the cause of millions of dollars of damage in the area. Many of you will say that it is not notable because of the lack of casualties, and as I read above, initial lack of damage. However please keep in mind that even as of today, the full scope of the disaster is still being determined, and the damage seen now is much more than what was seen a mere hours after the earthquake occurred.


 * I also noticed somebody said that if magnitude 5 earthquakes must be notable, then a magnitude 5 earthquake article would appear every day on Wikipedia. While that would be true, the fact is that the majority of magnitude 5s are not notable. I would go so far as to say some magnitude 7s are not even notable. It all depends on the locale, the type of damage caused, the rarity of the event, the magnitude, the effects on the impacted population, was the earthquake underwater or above, how deep was the earthquake, how remote was the earthquake, how populated the impacted region was, the type of geologic structures involved, the notoriety of the region to have earthquakes (California has a high notoriety, thus a magnitude 5 is not as notable there, granted unless it occurs in close proximity to a large population center, as one in North Carolina, which has a low notoriety.), response from the scientific community, among other reasons that I fail to think of right now. To say the least, it is very nuanced.


 * Now to go the notability of this specific earthquake, I would agree that at first glance, one may believe that this event was not notable, due to the lack of initial damage reports, and that can be seen near the top of the article. However, this type of event plays out over time, and only after the span of a few days, can one begin to really understand what has happened with all the facts and evidence laid before them. This earthquake did cause significant damage in the area, was located in a very populated region and felt by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. It was a shallow earthquake. It was a rare event, as events of this size occur on the east coast every few decades (the fact that it occurred a mere 9 years after the Virginia earthquake is uncommon indeed), and is one of the largest, at magnitude 5.1, to occur in the region, much less east of the Mississippi River. The earthquake was along one of the Blue Ridge Anticlinorium thrust faults, depicted through motion tensor diagrams. This is a significant geologic structure, responsible for raising the Blue Ridge 250 million years ago, and the faults in question are exceptionally large ones. As a result of this, it may garner significant scientific attention due to the possibility of fault reactivation. The population of the region, especially within 100 miles of the event, and a significant number outside that radius will remember this event for a long time. It has historical significance, being the largest earthquake to strike the state since 1916 an earthquake also in western North Carolina. This alone may cause debate as to whether the earthquake hazard maps need to be revised to match with historic seismicity in the region, as most of the larger NC earthquakes have occurred in the western part of the state. Time will tell if this occurs, but it is a possibility. The same thing was done in Oklahoma during the 2010s with the devastating earthquake swarm there, and the same was done in Virginia after the 2011 earthquake. Regardless, more information will come out for this earthquake over time, and will make the event more notable than it is now. One must have patience for earthquakes, as they take time to process.


 * I came to Wikipedia because I noticed the lack of notable earthquake articles in Wikipedia. There are so many significant historical seismic events in the United States that do not have so much as a single article. Most of them are in the east, or at least not in California. Fortunately, efforts to fill in these gaps are picking back up. I will be taking part in these efforts. I am troubled by the amount of discord because an earthquake as notable as this is even more notable than the majority of articles on earthquakes in the United States. Just because a house didn't collapse or a person didn't die does notmake an earthquake unnotable. There may have been half a dozen earthquakes east of the Rocky Mountains that exceed North Carolina's in notability. If that is the case, then either Wikipedia's notability rules should be modified to fit scientific notability rules, or Wikipedia should take down at least 80% of United States earthquake articles. This earthquake is nearly as notable as the 2018 Anchorage earthquake, and should be treated as such.


 * On that note, notable earthquakes can be:
 * Magnitude 3.5 or less: not notable in any form
 * Magnitude 3.5 to 4.5: Not notable unless in extreme circumstances
 * Magnitude 4.5 to 6: Somewhat notable; check situation
 * Magnitude 6 to 7.5: Usually notable; check situation
 * Magnitude 7.5+: Notable unless in extreme circumstances


 * Here I stand, and let this be an example to the entire earthquake community. There must be more transparency on earthquake notability. If Wikipedia rules to delete this article, then grounds to delete the majority of other events now exist as well. If they do so, then Wikipedia will lose a lot of valuable information. I came here due to the lack of articles on notable earthquakes. I now wonder that the lack of this is not due to neglect, but possibly by Wikipedia's stringent rules on notability. If they do delete this, I will not stand by it, and my work as an editor here, and my purpose to fill in the gaps that I saw will be for naught. But I am not Wikipedia. I only want to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you.Webecoolalasdair (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong, strong keep. Significant impacts to the community it occurred in as well as, as several news outlets and scientists have been stating, this earthquake serves as very valuable insight into a rare type of quake, and is as such very important to the scientific community. Made national headlines as well. This isn't just some random insignificant blip on the radar that should be deleted and left to be forgotten to everyone else but the inner circles of the scientific community, Wikipedia is many's first stop for information and facts on things such as this, especially considering its significance. Hurricanes and tropical storms that have less of an impact than this quake does get articles, so it makes no sense why this quake shouldn't get one. From what I can tell, the campaign to get this article deleted seems to be only led, or at least, spearheaded by just one person, judging by what I'm seeing on this talk page...everyone else seems to be strongly in favor of keeping it by a landslide. Lfax-nimbus (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC-4)


 * Strong Keep This earthquake is quite notable due to its location and its impacts on the communities affected by it.TH1980 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or replace with a redirect to the list of earthquakes in 2020 - The relevant guideline for earthquake articles is WP:EVENT. The section particularly relevant to this event is the one on lasting effects, WP:EFFECT, which states "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable". This earthquake will have little lasting impact on the the local population. As to other articles see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mikenorton (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It will have a lasting effect on the town's history. This earthquake damaged dozens of homes and has lead to the demolition of quite a number due to unsafe hazards. The news is all over this. I do support a link to the list of earthquakes in 2020 however, but not deletion. This is too significant an event. Earthquake Maestro (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2020. I watch Earthquakes daily, and while this is a unique intraplate event in a region that has not had an earthquake event for a century, it is not a significant earthquake. Talk significant when you get to 7.0 or more. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2020: Based on WP:SUSTAINED: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Since there was no damage/death its very unlikely this will have any sustained coverage. I find arguments persuasive. The sources give a presumption of notability, but not a guarantee. The keep votes all seem to carry some level of WP:ILIKEIT and are light on reason why this is actually worthy of note.. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  05:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.