Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Earthquake of 1341


 * 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 opinions based on WP:V are compelling, and mandate deletion. Most or all "keep" opinions make the argument that, as one editor puts it: "Something happened. Something notable. What - there is no consensus". This line of argument ignores that notability is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for inclusion. If we cannot even tell from reliable sources what it is that happened, then there is no verifiable basis for anything resembling a coherent article. WP:V being a core policy, arguments at odds with it must be discounted, leaving me to find a consensus to delete the article. That does of course not prevent recreation if somebody does manage to find a new reliable source that tells us what kind of natural disaster, if any, happened in 1341 in India.  Sandstein  19:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

India Earthquake of 1341

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Misinformation. We cannot build articles on flimsy sources such as (some of) these. Some sources presented here portray a flood, and not an earthquake. A quote from this article states that "The natural dam at Bhoothathankettu (old Bhoothathankettu), is a result of either an earthquake or huge land slide in one of these two historically recorded floods".

So sounds like there's a good chance that a significant flood occurred but there is speculation about a landslide or an earthquake. We shouldn't construct articles on uncertainty. Dawnseeker2000  22:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete this article is a victim of poor content infastructure. right now we have Geography of India which has no information about earthquakes (I'm not geologist but earthquakes seem notable to the field) instead we have an isolated List of earthquakes in India that is just going to incubate stub after stub instead of giving us a good article. I vote delete this article and add a section to Geology of India for earthquake information that can spin out to its own article if it gains sufficient material. but the current setup of just a list is going to generate stubs like this all the time. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep...but only if - I'm always uncomfortable using blogs as the source for any information (ref 2). Finding sources in English for an event so long ago is difficult.  I'm happy with reference 5 with establishing notability, but since it not what is probably considered a scholarly source, the article needs a few more of these.  I would suggest that we not rush to delete this and allow time for the author to come up with more references. Best Regards,   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 17:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Response – Reference 5 discusses the flood of 1341. We can't keep this article as it is and hope for a better source (because there aren't any). We should go with the most trustworthy source that's in the article (I've added formatting):




 * Rajendran et al. discuss (page 786) that some of the supposed events in India's existing earthquake catalogs have not been "critically evaluated". The 2009 paper goes on to say that a "glaring example" of this is the "oft-quoted Malabar Coast earthquake of 1341" that an early (1900) study of seismicity in India declared a "severe earthquake" and that an even earlier study (1846) deemed the 1341 event to be a "large storm". The paper's authors then state that "critical evaluation of the available data suggests that the 1341 event was not an earthquake but a storm..." and that "we have obtained independent evidence of flooding in the Bharathapuzha River basin that occurred sometime between A.D. 1269 and 1396"... "this probably represents the 1341 flood.. a severe event...". This paper does not provide evidence of an earthquake and cannot be used to support the existence of such an event. Dawnseeker2000   19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - No real evidence of an earthquake, ref #5 doesn't mention an earthquake at all and the Rajendran et al source is clear enough I think. Mikenorton (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep tho we may need to retitle it--since it is not clear whether it was an earthquake, or flood, or storm. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – As nominator, I don't think we exist to propagate uncertainty. We have an existing article on the municipality of Kodungallur that states it was either a flood or an earthquake. I think that's about all we need. We can't have dedicated articles on possibly or maybe. Since we have several reliable sources that states that this was more likely a flood than an earthquake, I've pinged the people at WikiProject Meteorology. It might be helpful to see what they have to say about this.

These sources support a storm :



Here are several sources that support the existence of an earthquake, but I would never use sources like these to support an article. We would need something far more reliable to support a WP article. The book source mentions an earthquake in 1341, but doesn't elaborate. I am doubtful of its reliability and the author has gone out on a limb. The whole book isn't available on Google Books so unable to verify his sources, if any. The newspaper's statements are dubious as well.

These sources support an earthquake:



I think what's going on with these two sources are the effects of oral tradition and storytelling; not science. Dawnseeker2000  02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:AFDFORMAT, your post should be labelled "Comment", rather than "Delete"; using "Delete" gives the appearance of a double vote, because your !vote is already implied by your nomination. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: even if I was convinced (which I am not) there is adequate sourcing to establish some natural disaster happened in 1341, and sources differed on which it was; then, the article would need to show that controversy, and prove that it was notable. Said otherwise: a flood might be WP material, an earthquake might be WP material, and a discussion about what happened (flood or earthquake) could be WP material, but an unspecified event with no discussion is not WP material because nothing could be verified. Tigraan (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Undecided after Piotrus' comment, see below.Tigraan (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - While it is possible that the article needs to be renamed, because it is not 100% clear what exactly happened, the event is notable, and we have multiple reliable sources. We have (1) The Rough Guide to Kerala, which talks about a flood (which could be caused by a storm or an earthquatek); (2) "A book on Kochi's rise at the cost of Muziris", which again talks about a flood; (3)"Kerala's proneness to earthquakes", which talks about an earthquake; (4)Geology, Environment, and Society, which lists the earthquake in a list; (5) Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, which discusses the possibility of an earthquake; (6) The Face of the Earth, which discusses the earthquake briefly; and (7) Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society, which discusses the appearance of the island of Vaypi (while an earthquake is not expressly mentioned as the cause, the discussion occurs in a footnote about an incident in the Azores where 18 islands appeared after an earthquake). Also, based on references from other works, it appears that one of the catalogs of earthquakes, authored by S.K. Guha, et al., may include the 1341 earthquake (quite a few books and publication refer to a catalog of Indian earthquakes, authored by Guha, et al., that begins in 1341). I have been unable to find an online version of the catalog of earthquakes, but there are hard copy versions of the catalogs.  Unfortunately, I have been unable to determine which edition (if any) the 1341 earthquake is referenced in. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Response – I think "discuss" isn't the right word. None of these sources talk about the event in any detail. They can't (and neither can we). What would the section headings of our article be? The Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India link provided above underscores my earlier point about this really being about tradition. What we would really need for an article are several densely-packed sources that are focused on this event and nothing else. That is what's needed to develop any sort of useful or meaningful WP article. Stubs don't really work around here, and that's all we'll have with the sources that have been presented; several sentences at most. If there was more to be said, it would have been done already. The existing (couple of sentences) at Kodungallur is what I imagine our "article" would look like. Dawnseeker2000   14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just because it cannot be expanded beyond a stub does not mean it should be deleted. We've pretty much solved the uncertainty problem, and now your issue is that "stubs don't really work around here", so we should delete it.  It's a notable event; we can source it with reliable sources.  I'm unaware of any guidelines or policies that say there's a minimum word requirement to keep an article.  And there potentially is more to say.  As I noted, there are potentially hard copy sources that could be used to further expand the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course there are no guidelines that say stubs are to be avoided, but its preferable to have well-developed and substantial articles. We have content on this event in the encyclopedia right now – I think the wording at Kodungallur covers it adequately. What we've established with the sources that we have right now is that no one is certain what happened in 1341, but that there was probably a flood. The best source that we have (that has several paragraphs detailing the lack of knowledge about that event) says an earthquake didn't occur. Writing about an earthquake is out, so what do we have left? Really not much, and that is what our article would be left with. I just don't think it's a good idea to create an article on an event that is not well-established. Look at this quote from the one journal article: "We have obtained independent evidence of flooding in the Bharathapuzha River basin that occurred sometime between A.D. 1269 and 1396 (Table 1A). This probably represents the 1341 flood.. a severe event that probably affected many river basins of Kerala." Notice what's written twice in this sentence? Probably. We shouldn't do this article. Dawnseeker2000   18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it was probably a flood and not an earthquake. There are a lot of sources that talk about an earthquake.  I don't understand why writing about an earthquake "is out".  You're right about the journal article; we probably shouldn't use it, because it doesn't really say anything about the 1341 earthquake or 1341 at all (so using that as a source would be original research).  But we have, as I pointed out in my original !vote, a number of sources that confirm an earthquake.  We can use those, because they don't say anything about just "probably".  The vast majority of sources about this event talk about an earthquake. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to "I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it was probably a flood and not an earthquake." – It's the journal article. I'd prefer if we didn't create an article on a flood and I'll be really relieved if we don't say there was an earthquake. I'm sticking with the source that I trust (the journal article). I'd also prefer to not do an article on a flood because the sources that have been presented are not strong enough. WP needs to not breed or proliferate uncertainty. We need very strong sources to build articles (there's no reason not to). We're just lacking in that respect with this one. I'll say it again: we already have about as much as there is to say in the Kodungallur article. Let's delete this thing and be done with it. Dawnseeker2000   05:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But why trust that source as definitively correct above all the other sources? I get that you trust the journal article, but why don't you trust any of the other sources?  And it's really not true that we've said all there is to say.  We know there are potentially other non-Internet sources out that should be explored to expand the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's look at these one by one


 * The Rough Guide to Kerala – The Rough Guides are not an authoritative source for meteorological events.


 * "A book on Kochi's rise at the cost of Muziris" – This is a book review by a newspaper (The Hindu) and the author is a journalist (Tanya Abraham) not a meteorologist. We need scientists talking about this supposed event, not journalists.


 * "Kerala's proneness to earthquakes" – This newspaper article discusses the supposed earthquake, which is disputed, so we're not going to write a dedicated article on it. So, quoting from this newspaper article, "earthquakes which had hit the State right from 1341 A.D. when the Vypeen Island which did not exist before 1341 and was thrown up from the sea after a severe earthquake measuring 5.7 on the Richter scale". Pretty astonishing claim. I'd never use that as a source for an event and I'd question anyone who did.


 * Geology, Environment, and Society – A brief mention of an earthquake in a list is not adequate to support a stand alone article


 * Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India – This underscores my earlier point, nearly word for word, because it says "According to traditions this coast in 1341 was the scene of a very severe earthquake". It's not OK to use sources with that kind of language.


 * The Face of the Earth - Quoting the tidbit from this book, "As a matter of fact it is a mass of marine sediment which was driven into its present position during an earthquake in 1341". Really. Sounds like he's desperately trying to convince the reader, and again, there's just no detail. I would never use a source that uses that kind of language.


 * Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society – Here we go. Listen to this author, who is speaking about his source, "...I have not considered the description specific enough for the text, but see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the fact: –"The island of Vaypi, on the north side of Cochin, rose from out the sea in the year 1341..." Nope, can't use it.

So I think it all comes down to an editors (and Wikipedia's) minimum standards for sources. I prefer to use sources that cannot be questioned because they're written by authoritative agencies or authors. Like I said, there's no reason not to. Dawnseeker2000  19:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But your preference seems to be higher than Wikipedia's guidelines. There is no requirement for many of the restrictions that you are trying to place.  We don't need only meteorologists talking about flood events.  Many meteorological articles use sources written by journalists, rather than meteorologists; to say that we should only use articles written by scientists may be the standard you use in adding sources and information to articles, but that does not translate into a reason to delete this article.  I'm not sure why you wouldn't use the third source and would question anybody who did.  Your logic here seems circular: The event that happened was disputed because we do not have any reliable sources that definitely say what happened, so any sources that definitely say what happened must not be reliable, and we can't use it.  On the fourth bullet point, I agree; it's not enough to support an article alone; however, it can be used as an additional source to support what happened.  There is nothing in WP:RS that precludes the fifth source; it provides an historical context.  Your logic on the sixth source is, again, circular.  You don't want to use that source because you distrust it for some reason, but there's really no legitimate reason to distrust that source. I also see no issue with the last bullet point's source. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a decent standard for quality of sources. Regardless of the perceived quality of these sources, just what exactly is this stub going to say with what we've got? The process, by the way, should be to locate a great source, then write the article. Writing an article with the hope that someone, somewhere will come along and rescue it with a proper source is backwards. It's fine to use journalists as sources for modern events with dozens or hundreds of sources, but we need scientists take on things for events that are in question as to whether they took place at all. I really didn't intend to spend so much effort on this thing, and I really didn't think I'd be shooting myself in the foot by asking at the WikiProject talk page. If you want to be responsible for writing crap, go ahead. My stance is still delete. Just don't say earthquake in your article. Dawnseeker2000   21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, I'll expand it the best I can (but I'm not going to do that if it's just going to get deleted). The bolded part may be your standards, but that's not grounded in any WP policy or guideline.  And I don't know how you've shot yourself in the foot by asking the Meteorology WP to come here; by coming here and engaging in the discussion, we've been able to establish that there are more sources that discuss the event than originally thought.  That's the purpose of an AFD—to determine if an article should be deleted, after reviewing all of the information available and the pros and cons. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, rename and rewrite. Something happened. Something notable. What - there is no consensus. Rename to Natural disaster in India, 1341 and rewrite in light of the sources presented here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a plausible option, too, if there is enough to write about. I would not be a fan of a "X says, Y says, Z says" article, but I cannot really quote a guideline against that. Tigraan (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. We can't write a sensible article on the "something that happened in 1341." There doesn't seem to be any agreed information about this event in WP:RS. -- 120.23.176.56 (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — 120.23.176.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.