- July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
This article was deleted by User:Kurykh after an AfD discussion earlier this month. Kurykh made the decision to delete based on his opinion that this is news coverage and therefore doesn't belong, despite its meeting the notability standard. The discussion itself had an ambiguous result. I propose that, since the subject is notable, the article should be restored. Everyking 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, well-reasoned closing statement by closing admin. Notability is not incidental, and Wikipedia is not a news source; no arguments to the contrary were raised. As an aside, these sorts of events happen all the time, and there aren't articles on them since they don't have any lasting significance. --Coredesat 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems to have clearly met the notability standard. While I can't view it now, in the AfD it was mentioned that it had many reliable sources cited and that Google News was listing hundreds of articles about it. There is no argument that circumvents that. Everyking 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is. WP:NOT#NEWS states that something being in the news for some period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article on it. WP:NOT is policy; policy trumps WP:N. All the news stories used as references in the article say the exact same thing - it happened, and there was very minimal damage. Not to mention that the article was absolutely horrendous and self-contradictory to begin with. --Coredesat 03:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's another example of how BLP-based policies are used to cover other areas of content. What you cite justifies itself by pointing to "the harm our work might cause" and says that "the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately". Of course, it makes no sense whatsoever to apply that to an article on an earthquake. Everyking 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion - The effects of this earthquake was "knocking out power to 4,600 homes in Oakland, damaging some stores and snapping at least one gas line." - A thunderstorm is capable of doing such minimal damage. There is just no historic notability to this event. Corpx 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Historic notability is not necessary. In the sense of historic as most people understand it, only a small fraction of Wikipedia's content has historical significance. The encyclopedia has been built on a much broader understanding of notability, which is encapsulated in the requirement to have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. I am just arguing that the same standard should be applied here. Everyking 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As Coredesat mentioned, historic notability is required. - "something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". This sort of article is much more appropriate at wikinews Corpx 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In your estimation, what sort of earthquake, or natural disaster of any kind, is historically notable? I can think of only a few earthquakes I would consider historically notable. What about hurricanes? Most of them drift harmlessly into cool water and dissipate, but our practice (quite rightly, in my opinion) is to have an article on every single one of them. Surely a hurricane that drifts harmlessly away from land is not historically notable? And back to earthquakes: what kind of damage or loss of life do you think needs to occur for historical notability to exist? I mean, if 100 people die, is that enough? 1,000? If a whole city is mostly or entirely destroyed, like Bam, Iran, should the quake have an article (I don't see one for the quake that levelled Bam)? Do a certain number of years, decades, or centuries need to pass so that we can ascertain historical notability? Everyking 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be an earthquake, but it didnt cause any more damage than the storm that passed by my place last week. Do we really have articles about tropical storms that did not make landfall? Just like there is a difference between a thunderstorm and a tropical storm, there should be one for earthquakes (although I'm not qualified to say what that # might be) Corpx 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we have many articles on storms that didn't make landfall, and some of them are even featured. But most hurricanes that do make landfall aren't historically notable, either, are they? It's a very poor standard to apply. You shouldn't look at an event and evaluate its notability based on how many people died or how much damage was done; you should evaluate it based on references confirming recognition of the subject and importance attached to it. If it has those multiple, independent, non-trivial sources, then we should keep it: that's the notability standard, and it's the only one that is consistent and reasonable. Everyking 08:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything that happens in the news will have significant coverage from independent sources. I dont think that means we should be writing about every story being covered by the press. I dont think an encyclopedia should be the documenter of current events with minimal long term notability Corpx 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion - where the boundary lies between news reporting and encyclopaedic recording is a matter of judgement but in my view a fair factor is how long the media coverage lasts. In this case, no long term reporting is cited nor are any consequential infrastructure changes. Finally, there was a good majority for deletion. TerriersFan 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion Fair closure. Conflates news with encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 04:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. There may be a line between news and encyclopedic notability, but this isn't anywhere near it. --Calton | Talk 07:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the article somewhere on Wikinews? As the subject for a newspaper article, this would probably be appropriate, but I feel that an earthquake in the Bay Area which caused minimal property damage, and no injuries is about as notable as a storm during the monsoon season, and does not have a sufficiently lasting impact to make it notable. Closing rationale was otherwise appropriate. Sorry Everyking, but I think I'll need to endorse this deletion from Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going by the notability standard. One thing that would be useful to know is how long this article was. If there wasn't much content, perhaps it could be merged somewhere (probably the ideal solution, since I doubt there's very much to say about it), although I don't know where. Everyking 09:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I recall correctly, we can not transwiki to Wikinews due to license incompatability. This is unfortunate, as many articles that belong on Wikinews are started here. If there is a Wikinews article, it needs to be an independently written article. GRBerry 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sjakkalle, there isn't a Wikinews article that I can find. Nevertheless, GRBerry is correct that we cannot transwiki there as Wikinews uses Creative Commons licensing instead of GFDL. Everyking, the content in the Google cached version is about ten sentences referenced to two primary sources (USGS data) and one secondary source, a television station. Still, it wasn't deleted until five days after that snapshot. --Dhartung | Talk 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
