Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992 Big Bear 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. Merge discussion may be continued on the article's talk page at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Big Bear earthquake

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. No death, casualties or injury. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Landers, California earthquake. It's most likely is that it was an aftershock of the latter. --Diego Grez (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an aftershock. The USGS link cited in the article specifically says that it is not an aftershock, but a distinct earthquake occurring along a different fault.[1]Davemcarlson (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Landers earthquake as it is generally considered part of the same sequence. RapidR (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails "Rule of 7." Carrite (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen people throw this fictional WP:RULEOF7 guideline up a lot lately. Where is this guideline? I'm not seeing it.--Oakshade (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember this earthquake; it was well-reported nationally. I was a teenager living in Pittsburgh at the time, and I remember it. Dew Kane (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You remembering it doesn't make it notable. I can remember about four earthquakes since 2000. That doesn't make them notable, and only one was. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Landers, California earthquake. The earthquake occured three hour later ~~and~~, but fails WP:NOTNEWS for a standalone article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An earthquake event occurring three hours after another has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NOTNEWS is a flurry of news coverage about an event that has no significance afterwords as this topic does.--Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very significant coverage, much of it even years after the earthquake, therefore WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply.[2][3][4]--Oakshade (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see why people think "Merge", but it is not a merge situation. Here's why: There were two distinct earthquakes, and they didn't even occur on the same fault, as referenced in the USGS link cited on the article's page.[5]
- In response to Diego Grez's comment, the USGS link also specifically states that it was not an aftershock, but rather a standalone earthquake that was related to the other one. This confusion is one reason for keeping it a distinct article rather than a merged one: if the articles were merged, it would present a faulty (no pun intended) linkage between the two that would obscure the meaning of the term "regional earthquake sequence". The USGS found it significant enough to indicate that it was not simply an aftershock, and in the interest of clarity, it should be organized in a similar way on Wikipedia.
- The only other logical solution would be to create a page specifically related to the Landers-Big Bear earthquake sequence, and not just tack it on to the Landers earthquake page.
- Regional earthquake sequences is a scientifically significant topic that isn't yet covered on Wikipedia, yet few people would suggest that it isn't worth covering on WP. This earthquake being part of the two cited examples of this type of sequence is an indication of notability.
- Finally, I hope I have raised some good points to distinguish this "Keep" article from a "Merge" article, but finally, I think in a judgment call, it's worthwhile to err on the side of inclusionism in Wikipedia areas that aren't approaching the "saturation point" that makes them problematic. Unlike living people, pop culture, and internet phenomena, the seismology section of Wikipedia is not one that is at risk of abuse. As I mentioned in one of my previous points, there are potential articles related to earthquakes that are of WP-level significance yet haven't been written yet. I think the reasons to keep the article outweigh the reasons to merge it, but if it's on the fence, I think it's wise to err on the side of inclusionism for the reasons I have mentioned. That's my two cents. Davemcarlson (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources; the merge argument is based on the assumption that it is an aftershock, which assumption is negated by a reliable source which trumps the opinions of those who say, without authority, it was an aftershock. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can find article 7 years after the event in the LA Times[6], WP:NOTNEWS has no casualty requirement suggest a rewrite of WP:NOTNEWS to include a minimum casualty count before making such claims in an AFD. [{WP:NOTABILITY]] require independent reliable sources a google search returns 51 media references between 1992-1999 a normal google search -wikipedia returns 18,200 hits. Gnan garra 06:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.