Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2011 Christchurch 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Christchurch earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:RECENTISM; WP:NOTNEWS; Non notable event, no casualties, no deaths, no damage. Though it caused some damage, I don't think it is worthy of having an article on Wikipedia. At the very least, merge with 2011 Christchurch earthquake Diego Grez (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Delete as per OP's reasoning. The cited policies exist for a reason and having pages on non notable news events does harm wikipedia N o f o rmation  Talk  04:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, references tell me that six people were wounded. Why are you wanting to delete a short, yet well referenced article that does this encyclopedia no harm by existing? Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia isn't a news source. Diego Grez (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That page hardly reads like a news article. Per those policies we should be deleting pages on every event that is recorded here. I'll get started deleting other news events such as the Battle of Waterloo, Russian Revolution, etc. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The first one you linked occurred in 1815, the other one is a dab page with links to at least three different revolutions in the 20th century. None of them should nor are written like a news article. This one, in contrast, is about an event that occurred just minutes ago. Diego Grez (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So applaud the person on their quick writing? I'm sure that if Wikipedia had existed in 1815 someone would have written an article on the Battle of Waterloo as soon as they found out about it. We should hardly be discouraging the creation of well written, well referenced articles like this one per the fact that it's based on a recent event. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read those policies, you'd know that Wikipedia shouldn't be for current news sources. It doesn't matter if this earthquake happened a few minutes ago or a few decades ago. If it was only based on minimal news coverage without any broader evidence of its encyclopediac nature, then the nominator has a valid concern for the existence of the article. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, and had it been written as a news article I'd have supported its deletion. But as it is, you are asking me to support deleting a well written, neutral, well referenced event in history, and I see no reason to do that. WP:IAR if nothing else. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ajraddatz, NOTNEWS is a content guideline, not a style guideline. An article can be written in pitch-perfect encyclopedia style and still cover an event that received no lasting coverage and had no lasting effects. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 50 buildings damaged, 10 people wounded? The locals will remember that if nothing else, and since it is very well written... I still say let's keep it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was an ill-considered move, Diego Grez, putting an event like this, which is causing distress to a large number of people, up for deletion while it is current. Among other things, these people urgently need reliable information on the web, which Wikipedia normally, somewhat, provides. Please take note of this, and wait until the dust settles before you make a move like this in the future. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the following five words: "I don't give a fuck." It does not matter if it happened now or a millenium ago, the event itself is part of the 2010-2011 New Zealand earthquakes series, and it should not be on a stand-alone article, rather inside the earthquake's article pointing out it is the most important aftershock, nothing else. If people need "reliable information on the web", they shouldn't be using Wikipedia at all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source; a helping source at best, but not the ultimate one. I'll reiterate it once again, I don't give a fuck if it "was an ill-considered move" according to you, it's your point of view, and I'll continue to think this is rather useless. Diego Grez (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please leave the Wikipedia community and only return when you have grown up. It is my belief that at 16 your POV is not exactly inline with that of the community as a whole. I thank you for your past contributions, however in future these will not be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.183.128 (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * None of that is any excuse for not staying WP:CIVIL. Jpatokal (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Few comments: Epipelagic, Wikipedia's aim is not as you state. We are not meant as a first source of information. We are an encyclopaedia. Diego: I've known you for a while from ITN, and I am rather surprised by your unnecessary outburst here. Agree to disagree, please. Anon: That was unnecessary and pure trolling. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Keep". Moderately significant earthquake occurring in the anglosphere.160.39.54.130 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How does it harm us? Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete Ajraddatz, it harms us in that it is an example of turning Wikipedia into a news source. This website is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and as such, it needs to fit the criteria in WP:NOTNEWS, as stated above. The way the article is written is irrelevant, this discussion is about the subject of the article. This earthquake, while tragic, is a news event, not an encyclopedic event. Bstbll (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is flawed: NOTNEWS does not say that Wikipedia should not cover news events, it only says that being in the news alone is not sufficient to establish notability. Events with "enduring notability" (to quote NOTNEWS) can be both in the news and encyclopedic at the same time, and if the event caused scores of buildings to collapse, it'll be remembered for longer than the daily news cycle. Jpatokal (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge: Several people have been hurt, and some serious damage. It's notable following the disastrous February New Zealand Eathquake in which 100+ people were killed and Christchurch is still reeling from that event.

At very worst, Merge it into the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Nath1991 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep, SMH reports ~50 buildings collapsed. This is clearly a major event. --Xaliqen (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to collapsing buildings, latest counts have 10+ people injured. Also, by the draft guidelines at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes, the earthquake (intensity VIII) qualifies by having an intensity of VII or higher.  It's also over 3 months after the previous earthquake, so it's not a part of the same event. Jpatokal (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and there is now a confirmed death as well. Jpatokal (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The earthquake was also significant enough to get widespread reporting and is encyclopedic value... so it should be kept. Aeonx (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this is significant, especially if the number of casualties rise.Wheatsing (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The earthquake resulted in a casualty, as well as extensive damage, therefore it should remain as its own article, the locals will remember this event, and many of them spent a long amount of time without electricity and water as a result of the quake, they also now warn that other severe aftershocks could occur, these are all good reasons on why this page should remain. They are also considering this to be a separate event to the previous earthquakes. LabradorGroup (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is news. It might become notable later but I doubt it. It's really just a chapter in the story of the February earthquake. andy (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 12:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep: It is a new chapter in a sequence of events dating to Sep 2010, as a major event in the cycle it warrants its own page, particularly notable for a rapid sequence of severe shocks causing significant further damage to already fragile structures, multiple injuries and fresh damage to already repaired infrastructure. The event is four months from the Feb quake and which was four months from the Sept quake, and will trigger it's own sequence of aftershocks over the next few days. Over 50 buildings collapsed in the CBD. So KEEP. 118.136.208.35 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/canterbury-earthquake/77629/more-significant-quakes-rock-canterbury http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/20116134130249928.html 118.136.208.35 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable earthquake with many reliable sources and NOTNEWS doesn't rule it out just for happening recently so that shouldn't be a problem.  J e n o v a  20 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge any significant information into the 2011 Christchurch earthquake article. The damage and injuries reported to date are not quite severe enough to warrant a separate article. It's a fairly strong aftershock, but I think it's best covered within the context of the previous quake. --Avenue (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I'm Neutral. The possible fatality, increase in magnitude, and further reports of injuries and damage have moved this into borderline territory for me. --Avenue (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

--Stormchaser89 (talk) 11:56am, 13 June 2011 (US central time)
 * Strong Keep This is a another devastating blow to this city after two already powerful earthquakes last September and this last February, and has caused very significant damage as well as injuries. If some of the aftershocks from the Japan quake can have their own article I think this one should have the right to have one as well. I also don't believe this is a formatted as a news article.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge into 2011 Christchurch earthquake as per User:Avenue. Would not be significant enough for an article on its own if the February earthquake had not happened. Subsidiary only. NOTNEWS. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * keep its useful and it may g et bigger. a major historic building was destroyed. Maybe a template could be made called Christchurch earthquakes and new zealand dollar falling keep 86.181.131.187 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:Notnews and merge useful information into an aftershock section in 2011 Christchurch earthquake. There have been a lot of aftershocks in Chch, this is a bad one, but not bad enough to warrant it's own article. AIR corn (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * keep Just watched a decent news segment on it in Australia. While a merge would also work, it is probably notabile enough for its own article. AIR corn (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * keep there is an article about the 2007 Gisborne earthquake, which had no injuries and less damage Detonate (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is being regarded as both GeoNet and NZEQC as a separate event to the February event, and has certainly caused both casualties (non-fatal, thankfully) and significant damage (e.g., the collapse of Lyttelton Timeball Station's tower). FWIW, February's earthquake was 6.3 on the Richter scale, this one has recently been upgraded also to 6.3. As such, regarding it as separate from February's aftershocks seems sensible - and there well be enough information as a result of it to make a fairly sizable article. Grutness...wha?  01:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing to strong keep - one fatality reported now, which makes this one of only three deadly earthquakes in NZ in the last 65 years. That by itself is enough for it to pass any notability requirements. Grutness...wha?  06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Might not be related to the earthquake AIR corn  (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep: One fatality, an old man who fell over an was knocked unconcious in the quake and later died. Around 45 injuries, significant further damage to the city, at 6.3 the main shock was of the same magnitude as the Feb 22 quake, the latest quake was on a fault not linked to the Feb 22 event, so it's a new event in a cycle of quakes striking the city. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/christchurch-wakes-to-50-earthquake-20110615-1g2b4.html118.136.208.35 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC) This should stay, because one person was killed and it caused more damage, including a few buildings collapsing. If it happened in America then of course it would stay, so why not New Zealand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.58.80 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge - death, injuries and destruction reported so far. it's a 6.3, so it's still fairly notable. possibly merge with February; but they are both 6.3, so should be able to stand on their own. Since it's recent, we don't know all about it yet. There might be more info discovered soon making it more notable but as it is, I say it should be notable enough to stay. More notable than 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake (a 6.3 with no deaths), so you have to delete that before you can delete this. Kaldosh (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just adding that aside from considerable notability due to its impact, the earthquake and the weaker M 5.6 event have led to the discovery of an entirely different fault in the region. This is quite significant and makes it notable on scientific grounds. source for now, but more information (and possibly a scientific name) is likely to emerge. ★ Auree  talk 06:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about merging into 2011 Chch earthquakes? Qrfqr (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Whilst I'm from Christchurch, I'm currently overseas. But from what I've heard and seen, this event meets all the criteria of notability.  Schwede 66  22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. These quakes caused further damage (including to at least two historical buildings - the Timeball and the cathedral) and liquefaction, and there has been at least one causality. Also, it gained special news coverage from ONE News - if that's not notable, then what is? pcuser42 (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A large quake in a major city, widespread damage and disruption, significant coverage which is too large to merge with an already large article on the previous earthquake.--Melburnian (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * keep Today they announced that this earthquake was on a different fault to the earlier quakes, making it entirely separate from previous events LabradorGroup (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable event and widely covered in the media, the event is still on going (aftershocks) with the likely-hood of bigger quake due to the latest (13 June) 6.3 quake. Bidgee (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As a 6.3M this is just as significant as the February Earthquake. BTW Why, oh why, is 2011 Christchurch earthquake in the singular??? if only that were true! alastairgbrown (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think that an earthquake that affected 400,000 people with intensity VI+ shaking is mere "news", especially considering the damage and casualty reports. Darhan (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I think anyone who has the time and motivation to want to delete this entry must have way too much time on their hands. This is a valid event in its own right and the hasty impulse of one person is essentially irrelevant. (see numerous links for supporting evidence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.60.35 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I suppose a consensus has been reached then? ★ Auree  talk 19:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not entirely decided on this one, but i see no reason to delete the article, it can always be edited to make it less "newsy" and more "encyclopaedic", that's the beauty of Wikipedia...Trex21 (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep One related death, several injuries, considerable damage including the total destruction of an iconic landmark. Nominator has descended into incivility: Daveosaurus (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should probably close this. ★ Auree  talk 06:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It hasn't yet run a full week, it's not a clear WP:SNOW result (trending towards no consensus), and the nominator hasn't withdrawn the nomination. Incivility or not, there is no justification for an early close. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:EVENT. There is sufficient coverage in multiple news sources to justify an article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it happened in America, and it was an aftershock of an XYZ earthquake, it should be merged into that earthquake article, and should not be on a standalone article. See 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Diego Grez (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Except by that logic that article should be merged too, since it's also an aftershock of the 2010 Canterbury earthquake. ★ Auree  talk 04:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * KeepThis is a significant event in New Zealand's history and geology - there were two Wairarapa Earthquakes in 1942 that are regarded as separate events, similarly the Arthurs Pass and Murchison Earthquakes of 1929 are considered separate. While the 1942 earthquakes don't have pages (but the should), the two 1929 earthquakes each have their own pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.56.214 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There were two earthquakes affecting Christchurch on 13 June 2011. A 5.1 magnitude foreshock at 1:00 PM was strong enough to cause the evacuation of buildings which meant that when the 2:20 PM magnitude 6.3 mainshock struck most people had been evacuated from the most dangerous areas. Hence there were relatively few casualties. While both the June and February earthquakes appear to have been triggered by the 4 September 2010 Canterbury Earthquake, it may be that the June quake has higher ground accelerations than the February one. This alone makes the June event notable. The proposal to merge the February and June earthquakes is also inappropriate for the same reason. Rather the three earthquake articles should be clearly named and disambiguated to distinguish between the three separate earthquake events. Other earthquakes in the Canterbury aftershock sequence, such as the Boxing Day 2010 earthquake and the Queens Birthday Weekend 2011 earthquake that are also regarded as separate insurable events by EQC are probably notable enough to merit a mention in an overview article about the whole aftershock sequence of earthquakes, as will be the next magnitude 6+ earthquake that now has a 30% chance of occurring within the next year. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2011 (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.