Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Dudley earthquake

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to List of earthquakes in the British Isles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Dudley earthquake

2002 Dudley earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event, does not meet the notability guidelines for earthquakes Mikenorton (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of earthquakes in the British Isles, since this earthquake is not currently included in the list. Doesn't pass Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/notability guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of earthquakes in the British Isles. Marginally notable only because earthquakes of this magnitude (small as it is) in the British Isles are rare leading this one to be listed in coverage of other earthquakes in the British Isles (e.g. [1] [2]) - however it seems it is mainly covered in conjunction with other earthquakes as a previous example, so it would seem this is not independently notable of the set.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember this happening, and British people couldn't stop talking about it for a few days, but it is not the largest ever in the British Isles (biggest for 12 years - not to bad), and it is not 'big' at 4.8 on the Richter scale, and it didn't damage anything. Merging with a list is fine, because there is no possible content here beyond; "there was a small earthquake, it measured 4.8 on the Richter scale and lasted for 20 seconds, the epicenter was at grid reference SO898913, and it could be felt about 300 miles away". Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. As other comments note there is not enough notability to justify an article, but it would make sense for this earthquake to be on the list. Dunarc (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The problem with putting this earthquake back into the list (which was recently drastically shortened by me) is that such standalone lists should be lists of notable topics (assuming that this is an example of the first type mentioned in WP:CSC) so for inclusion they should individually meet the criteria - to quote "This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers", which in my opinion the previous version of the list article was (~50k). I will try to think of other ways in which such non-notable events could be recorded without recreating the list as it was. We should not be trying to match the full British Geological Survey list of earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Set a Richter threshold that would leave the list with an event every 3 years or so. This particular earthquake is clearly being referenced years after it has occurred (mainly when the next quake occurs).Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's notable enough, the issue is that there isn't anything to write about. This earthquake got national coverage, insisting on national coverage is a reasonable criteria. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these links are to the website of the Black Country geological society, one is a local news website, the BGS paper is BGS seismologists doing what they're paid to do - resarch British earthquakes, Keele Uni has been involved in researching British earthquakes for some decades, hence their interest and finally the BBC England (not the national part of the website) report the BGS's more considered view of the event. How do these demonstrate diversity? Mikenorton (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point of WP:DIVERSE is that multiple different sources are available to discuss the event at hand. While I have linked several sources that would be related to each other, this article continues to be mentioned in other articles about earthquakes even to this day, in a wide range of news sources - these were not the only two news sites to discuss the 'quake, and the local news article discussed it years after the fact. The BGS is not the sole source of earthquake news in Britain. SportingFlyer talk 01:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The earthquake notability guideline linked above seems incredibly strange as well, as most guidelines for inclusion include articles in which GNG is assumed, and then articles that aren't automatically notable but nevertheless meet WP:GNG. The guideline pointed to doesn't include WP:GNG anywhere. Does anything else override WP:GNG that's not WP:NOT on a consistent basis? SportingFlyer talk 05:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines have been in use for nearly 8 years now - they were drawn up after a series of contentious deletion debates. If you think that they are in need of revision then open a discussion on the relevant page. This is not the place for that. Mikenorton (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can assume the WP:GNG overrides that guideline, which is merely an explanatory guide on what earthquakes are considered relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought. It's just curious that an article passing WP:GNG could be considered not notable by a WikiProject, which another voter mentioned above. SportingFlyer talk 01:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors (even me) rarely correctly communicate their full thoughts, I don't think anyone above is solely relying on the earthquakes guideline, but rather neglecting to mention WP:GNG, as it is very common not to mention it if there is a more specific guideline (like saying "fails WP:NPOL", when it by rights should be "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL".) this really is a overall failing in the guidelines caused by the fact they are a patchwork of different bits written by different people at different times with varying consensuses, and varying adherence to the guidelines since. Hardly the easiest framework to work with. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does this article have encyclopedic value? If your answer is yes, please explain. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 02:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. As the largest earthquake in the UK for a good few years, and as an earthquake in a seismically stable region with few perceptible earthquakes, and as the event was covered by national news and mentioned internationally, documenting the event is of great encyclopedic value. But don't mistake that as meaning there ought to be a standalone article, that's another matter. Prince of Thieves (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response OK, I didn't make myself clear as I should have. My intention was to say that encyclopedic value and having an article mean the same thing. PoT, I want to respond to some of your ideas:
1) There are many perceptible earthquakes in the UK. Did you look at the list prior to the trim? Please count them for me and post the total here.
2) The news don't know what they're talking about when it comes to earthquakes. They never mention intensity. See Mikenorton's post about magnitude and intensity below. Going forward, magnitude is not going to be the standard by which we decide whether an EQ is notable. That practice has to stop right now.
3) What is it about this earthquake specifically that makes it stand out? If it's worthy of including, as a stand-alone article or as a list entry, there should be something to say on it. All I'm seeing is 1,000 characters/160 words saying where it happened, what magnitude it was, that there was no impact, and that there was a small aftershock that followed. I don't see anything encyclopedic about that. We can't just list events because they happened.
Dawnseeker2000 01:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I can't say I disagree. (there is about 120 on the list). I think documenting this event is of encyclopedic value, however I can't see why that should involve a standalone article, when it could be part of a list (as I point out above, below and as you mention). It was the biggest for 12 years in the region, and in my view, that alone is good enough to put it on a list currently filled with all kinds of unverified size medieval earth movements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's 224 on the list as restored to its former (and sadly current) indiscriminate glory - what is really odd in that list is the number of 19th-century earthquakes, 80 of them, the medieval ones are positively sparse in comparison. I attempted to shorten it to this, with 36 earthquakes, all with a decent claim for notability. Also I have proposed a way to include other events that will never get their own articles at Talk:List_of_earthquakes_in_the_British_Isles#Draft_summary_for_events_not_notable_enough_for_the_main_list as mentioned below. Mikenorton (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What matters in an earthquake is generally the intensity of shaking, not the magnitude, that's what causes the damage and injuries. There was an earthquake in Barrow-on-Furness in 1865 that has an estimated magnitude of 2.2, but due to its very shallow hypocenter caused maximum shaking of VIII (severe), compared to a maximum of V for the Dudley event (moderate), magnitude cut-offs don't work too well for that reason. Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not by itself. The information is useful in relation to other earthquakes in the region as a regionally unusual event - but really the sole interest here is on the level of "strongest in X years" sort of information.Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally that's why I feel like it would fit on a list, even if not really the right sort of topic for a standalone article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2002_Dudley_earthquake&oldid=1079903766"