Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seismicity of the New York City area


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Seismicity of the New York City area

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

Why do we even have this topic? Earthquakes in New York are rare. Seems like WP:NOTNEWS. But even most of the sources used in this article aren't really specific to New York earthquakes. We don't even have an article about seismicity of San Francisco which probably would be more appropriate.I could see incorporating some of this into an article about Earthquakes in the eastern United States, but we don't even have that. Articles about New York do not get auto-notability, just because its New York. Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Geography, United States of America,  and New York. Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps instead of deleting this article because the corresponding article for San Francisco does not exist, we should create the article about San Francisco. 104.162.205.129 (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think San Francisco is mostly covered at the articles for the named faults because it has named faults. The geological dynamics at the transform plate boundary are different than what is seen in the Northeast, where the pressure from divergent plate dynamics causes different patterns of earthquakes. The earthquakes in the Northeast are not less serious, they just don't always occur in the same place. I can focus the article more on New York specifically but I'm not seeing a reason to delete it. NeonSpectre (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While an article could be created for today's earthquake I think that may be a little NOTNEWS-y. The article was moved to this title today. The previous title was better. Other titles might be even better. It includes the historic New York earthquakes about which much has been written, and the historic earthquakes that were felt in New York. I don't really care that we don't have an article about San Francisco, but you can write one if you want to. NeonSpectre (talk) NeonSpectre (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think my point here was missed entirely, it was not that we need an article about San Francisco earthquakes, it was why does New York gets its own article when we could actually have a legitimate article about the earthquakes in the eastern Untied States which would be notable have seems to have plenty of sources, unlike this where its just using bits and pieces of other sources that are focused on a broader topic or just news articles about a particular event.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already started the process of splitting the general content about the eastern United States and focusing the article on New York City State. I wasn't very concerned about the title when another editor moved the article to Seismicity of the New York City area. Your complaint seems to be about New York though which I don't get. There are many easy to find sources for the Seismicity of New York State. NeonSpectre (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? see WP:NOTAVOTE--Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? because the seismicity of any major region is notable. Page isn't entitled “New York gets lots of earthquakes," and the documented rarity of a phenomenon in a region is notable as its documented commonality. Look at Snow in Florida. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Personally, an article for "Earthquakes in the eastern United States" sounds like a great idea. But it does not currently exist. This article may be thin and perhaps could use a clean-up, but this is a situation where the issue is not that we've got an article for a specific locale, but that we DON'T have a better extant overarching article, or one for other regions (as mentioned, such as San Francisco). DarkSide830 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a two-pronged issue, but I do think this meets the GNG, independent of the existence (or lack thereof) of articles about the seismicity of other regions.
 * There are scholarly sources like this, this, this, this, or this, in addition to resources like this. This doesn't even include the news and magazine articles that address the subject. If you're talking about seismicity in New York state, the reason for the AFD makes even less sense, as probably hundreds of scholarly sources exist about earthquakes in New York (e.g. the western part of the state).
 * Furthermore, I don't see how an article on the seismicity of NYC, or earthquakes in NYC, precludes the creation of an article about earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area or even the eastern U.S. Even if there wasn't enough material to warrant a separate article about NYC earthquakes/seismicity, it still does not prevent the scope of this article from being expanded to cover the eastern U.S.
 * – Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: While I understand the recent news of an earthquake that happened not too far from here, the recent spur in attention regarding to the earthquake may help improve the article. I honestly believe it could have been better if there were some work to be added and as mentioned from others, it already has met some requirements that other users mentioned. 20chances (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rarity of earthquakes in the NYC area and thus explanations for their occurrence have been the focus of numerous reliable sources (e.g., those presented by Epicgenius) that would satisfy GNG. Such an article would also provide a place to discuss earthquakes that may not be individually notable (to not run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS for each one), and could readily be expanded in scope to include the northeastern US if the NYC area is too specific. The nomination statement also appears to rely somewhat heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and scope and sourcing issues are better addressed with cleanup than deletion. Complex / Rational  21:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic for this article is not centered around news of latest events, even if a section is. This topic has been proved to meet GNG and is more of a scientific topic than one focused on just "earthquakes that happened in New York." VarietyEditor (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep — And merge the recent earthquake article into this Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Article seems based on sufficient sources and is sufficiently well-written that I don't see any immediate issue with keeping it. Just because something is rare and subject to a current news cycle doesn't mean it never met WP:GNG to begin with. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2024 (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.