Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Gansu 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 04:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 Gansu earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I do not think this event is severe enough for an article since: -Only a small amount of injuries -Minor damage, the amount of damage to homes might seem high, but the buildings in China are very vulnerable to shaking -The earthquake was in a sparsely populated area Reego41 09:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete – Many hours have passed and there are no further developments other than four injured, a few hundred homes with minor damage, and some scattered minor effects.--Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 09:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what our usual standards are for earthquakes, but a quick Google search turns up lots of news reports. The article should probably be moved to 2022 Qinghai earthquake, as it looks like the epicenter was actually in Qinghai. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the Lanzhou–Xinjiang high-speed railway, which is an important transportation corridor, was seriously damaged and will likely be out of service for several months.    Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That can be included in the List of earthquakes in 2022 list.--Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 11:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – let us always remember that an article is only for SIGNIFICANT events. In the case of earthquake articles the most common attribution to an event's significance is the death toll which is a display of the severity of the event. Damage can be considered but ONLY if it is severe enough to wreak havoc upon not just an individual but at least an entire populous for that matter. Both of these conditions are not present in any way thus implying the lack of significance this event has = not deserving an article of its own (Moctiwiki) (Moctalk with me) 00:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The relevant guideline is Notability (events):The event has received "In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines" (WP:INDEPTH) through coverage in the Tempor source. Written by four scholars with doctorates, the source discusses the historical context in which the earthquake happened, comparing it to previous earthquakes, discussing the impact, and noting that the latest earthquake shows that "nearby sections are now closer to failure". The event has received significant coverage in a diversity of international sources outside of mainland China: Armenia, France , Hong Kong , Pakistan , Portugal , the United Kingdom , and the United States . The earthquake caused a 2 m section of the Great Wall of China to collapse. "The collapsed part of the wall was built during the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644)" . The event has received sustained coverage four to five days after the earthquake.  Sources <ol> <li>Articles published four or five days after the 8 January 2022 earthquake:<ol> <li> The article provides extensive analysis of the earthquake. It discusses the history of techtonic plates and earthquakes in the region and how the latest earthquake shows that "nearby sections are now closer to failure".</li> <li> Written by a national news agency, the article was published five days after the earthquake happened.</li> <li> Written by a national publication, the article was published five days after the earthquake happened and discussed the aviation industry's response to the earthquake.</li> <li> Written by a national magazine, the article was published five days after the earthquake happened and discussed why there were aftershocks after the earthquake.</li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol></li> <li>Articles published the day of the earthquake:<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol></li> <li>Articles and videos published outside of mainland China:<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 2022 Qinghai earthquake (zh:2022年门源地震) to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)</li></ul> Keep per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found by User:Cunard. (I still think the article should be moved, like I said above.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:10, 17 January 2022 (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.