Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthquake storm

Add links
From 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 delete. Consensus seems to be that this term is too fringe to cover in an article or even to merge some of the content elsewhere.  Sandstein  21:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake storm[edit]

Earthquake storm (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)

This term has not become established in the seismological literature and this page should be redirected to coulomb stress transfer, which covers the same topic Mikenorton (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term appears to have been coined by one archaeologist to refer to a particular earthquake swarm, and (as Mikenorton says) is not notable within the seismological literature. As an archaeological term it is improperly classified as an earthquake article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nom is requesting a merge, not a deletion. Merges should be discussed on article talk pages, not at AfD. J. Johnson, although supporting a delete here and upset by my WP:DEPROD, did not seem to want to bring this to AfD (see Talk:Earthquake_storm#WP:DEPROD). ~Kvng (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am suggesting a redirect as the best solution, effectively deleting this page. It would probably be worth mentioning the term in the text of coulomb stress transfer, which anyway needs a rewrite. Mikenorton (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you just said in your prior comment, "Merges should be discussed on article talk pages, not at AfD." On that basis I therefore invite you to strike your "Merge" comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators are supposed to consider a merge WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. We don't generally cancel the AfD discussion if nominators fail to do this. We carry on and allow Merge to be considered as one of the possible AfD outcomes. ~Kvng (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you say now. But just seven hours ago, and only some dozen lines above, you said: "Merges should be discussed on article talk pages, not at AfD." You seem to be quite flexible in your statements. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For a such a blatantly non-notable (and one-sourced) topic I thought a WP:PROD would be sufficient. But Kvng, seeing controversy where no one else does, applied a WP:DEPROD, forcing the discussion here, where he raises these other objections. Kvng has a history of doing this, with what looks nine or so DEPRODs so far today, and around twenty on the 20th. He has not shown that this term "earthquake storm" has any notability in the seismological literature, nor has he proposed to "fix" the article in any way. His effort here (and elsewhere) seems to be solely to the end of obstructing the deletion of articles by making more work for others. This is not good-faith dealing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am an active member of WP:PRODPATROL so, yes, I have been doing a lot of WP:DEPRODding. ~Kvng (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal Keep or merge. In addition to the Nur references, there is a popular book on the topic, Earthquake Storms: The Fascinating History and Volatile Future of the San Andreas Fault, a Salon article and the BBC piece cited in article. With just one academic proponent, the theory of earthquake storms is not yet mainstream geology. Yet the concept has gained attention in the popular press and could be considered as a notable non-mainstream idea. If the concept is explicitly treated as a non-mainstream theory in the article, this could perhaps satisfy our academic colleagues while acknowledging the concept has some notability in the popular press. In the interest of consensus, a merge to a related article like coulomb stress transfer or to a more general article like earthquake sequence, would be fine, too. But the verifiability of the concept precludes deletion. Update: I found a couple of mentions of earthquake storms in the geology literature, one a secondary review article, in my reply to Dawnseeker below. These provide further sources for the article and show it to be not pure fringe. --Mark viking (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this topic is "treated as a non-mainstream theory" the principle of WP:NPOV requires it to not be given undue weight, and for that the key considerations are:
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
In the seismological literature there seems to be absolutely zero mention of this topic (it is simply not a seismological theory), and Dvorak's book that uses this term is in the popular media; it is not a reliable source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The WP:FRINGE guidelines are helpful here. Nur, who looks to be the main proponent, is an archaeologist at Stanford who has proposed the idea of earthquake storms based on evidence they see in the archaeological record. By the criteria of WP:FRINGE/PS, this falls into the alternative theoretical formulation category. Further, this theory has gained some popular acceptance and may be "notable in the public eye", as it is termed in WP:FRINGELEVEL. One can write an article on this that consistent with neutrality and due weight by explaining that this alternative theory currently has no acceptance within the geology community, but has caught the public's interest. --Mark viking (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you said above, with "just one academic proponent, the theory of earthquake storms is not yet mainstream geology. A sensationalistic book (and associated articles) in the popular press is not a reliable source determining the notability of scientific topics, and I question whether that book meets even the "notable ideas in the public eye." Note that WP:FRINGELEVEL also says: "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." (Emphasis added.) Splitting hairs with WP:FRINGE/PS is pointless, as that is about distinguishing pseudoscience from questionable science, and this topic has not reached notability as either. As to being an "alternative theoretical formulation": I ask, alternative to what? Perhaps as an explanation of the demise of some Bronze Age civiliation, but this article is not about archaeology. At best the viewpoint here is "held by an extremely small" minority (i.e., "just one"), and therefore "does not belong in Wikipedia". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and don't leave a redirect) – Wouldn't it be better to eliminate the term from WP completely? By leaving the redirect, we are essentially (because of our broad reach) validating the term. I'm not sure that we should perpetuate its use if there has only been limited use by journalists and not at all by seismologists. Dawnseeker2000 05:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Attractive as it might sound, this is not our call to make on that basis. Editorially, Wikipedia follows reliable secondary sources. We don't make our own merit-based evaluations about what should and shouldn't be covered in the encyclopedia. We cover everything that meets notability requirements and for which we receive editorial contributions. ~Kvng (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely our call. Can I ask if you would create an article on the topic using the John Dvorak book as its source? I wouldn't, and that's because it's critical that we use appropriate sources for the topic. There are none, so I'm not sure why this discussion has gotten so long-winded. Mikenorton stated it succinctly in one sentence, but with a lenient outcome by leaving the redirect. Yes, it effectively deletes the content, but I'm a little less forgiving and would like to take it a step further. Dawnseeker2000 02:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences):

Appropriate sources for discussing the natural sciences include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as recent peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides.

It goes on about preferring sources that are "robust in methodology, published in high quality venues, and authored by widely cited researchers", etc. Dvorak doesn't qualify on any of this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fringe theory with no claim to mainstream notability. I would support a redirect if there was a suitable target; but eartquake swarm does not seem appropriate. "Eartquake storm" implies a causal cascade of events (eartquake A triggers eartquake B etc.) separated by multiple years, so it is different.
Oh, and may I suggest people to keep a cool head? Tigraan (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per J. Johnson and others. This really doesn't appear notable. Regarding the DEPROD, there's no reason to get frustrated over it. When an article is PRODded, the PROD goes at the first objection, and no explanation is required (requested and suggested, but NOT required). Please AGF on the part of Kvng, he has done a lot of good work here on Wikipedia, as have everyone else involved here in this discussion. Can't we all get along? :) Chrisw80 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We might get along a little better if a certain party did not have a continuing pattern of routinely bumping every PROD up to AfD, regardless of merit, based on incorrect or unsupportable "reasons" that fall quite short of the bar he sets for others, and forcing a bunch of extra work in cases that should have been routine deletions. I, and indeed, all of us, could have done bit more "good work here" but for this obstructionism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD is for deletions expected to be uncontroversial. I'm not sure why you expected no controversy. A previous talk page discussion seemed to reach consensus on doing a redirect, not delete. I'm open to any suggestions about how to improve my WP:PRODPATROL work. Based on previous feedback I'm leaving well-formed reasons in edit comments and additional information on talk pages in many cases. Accusations of obstructionism is not feedback that I can use so I ask that you kindly stop. ~Kvng (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no controversy here about the topic but your initial imagining of controversy where there was none, and your assertion that the Dvorak book establishes notability. The prior discussion raised the possibility of a redirect if there should be any objections to the deletion (there were not); the consensus was that the topic is not notable, and deletion entirely uncontroversial. Your earlier expectation that the article would survive AfD was fanciful (like a SNOWBALL's chance in hell), so forcing this AfD was a foreseeable waste of time, as a simple PROD would have reached the same result. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry to inconvenience you. ~Kvng (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you won't be quite so quick on the DEPROD trigger in the future. As to deletion discussion, would you assent to there being a consensus to delete this article, without a merge or redirect? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given a book on the subject, I would have deprodded as well. The proposed deletion was obviously controversial, as evidenced by this discussion. As far as I am concerned, there is no consensus to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in a position to make an objective call on the outcome of this discussion but, from where I sit, it does not appear to be a WP:SNOW situation.
I'm happy to adjust my WP:PRODPATROL behavior based on usable feedback. Forgive me if I am mistaken but I don't beleive I have received any usable feedback from J. Johnson. ~Kvng (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng: the feedback I am giving you is that you have been too hasty to DEPROD, that you misinterpreted the initial discussion, that you over-valued Dvorak's book, and possibly misunderstand the requirements of notability and reliable sources. Hopefully you might find all of this useful as points to review. If not, then I don't know quite what else could be usefully said.
I am working at WP:PRODPATROL because I have seen a lot of cases (somewhere around 25% of all PRODs) where editors may have been too hasty to PROD. If, due to my own errors and misunderstandings, I have been too hasty to WP:DEPROD in a few cases, that's overhead I think we should be willing to tolerate. ~Kvng (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mark: Perhaps you have not paid close enough attention, but quite aside from the meta-controvery about whether there is any actual controversy I would point out there is (currently) one "marginal keep or merge" vote (yours), two Merge votes (Kvng and MaeseLeon), and six Deletes. It seems to me that your concerns were amply addressed. In particular, your view that "this theory has gained some popular acceptance and may be "notable in the public eye"" is not supported by the existence of a single book, and is entirely trumped by "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." Your objection to deletion seems hardly credible. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a bit more of my perspective. User Emperorbma created this article late in December of 2005. From what I gather from their user page, they are an American computer programmer from Texas that speaks a little bit of Japanese, but there's no claim to being some type of scientist. Do you have to be? No, but is it important to know about who created the article? Yeah, I think so. It's part of the story. That's just the way we do things around here; anyone can create an article on anything. But you have to take that into consideration. So, looking at the initial version of the article, his only source was a blurb that was highlighting a BBC documentary on "Earthquake Storms". That probably should not have been accepted as an acceptable source for the article. That source should have been questioned right then and there. What we have here is a random Wikipedian creating an article using a random, less-than-ideal source.

The blurb about the documentary mentions the "earthquake storm" topic several times while introducing the scientists that worked on the stress changes during an impressive sequence of large and very large earthquakes that occurred in Turkey in the 20th century. Geophysicist Geoffrey King and seismologist Ross Stein both coauthored papers on the sequence and I took a look at both. King's paper was published well after the last westward-migrating event (1999 İzmit), but Stein's paper, while highlighting the risk to the city of İzmit, was published just two years prior. That's all quite spectacular, but the point here is that while looking through their papers, it was clear that they did not use the term "earthquake storm". This sequence is mentioned in our article and these scientists are literally at the heart of the matter. We should be following their tone, not the tone of some TV documentary. See the titles below for the tone that appropriate professionals use. It's not about hype, which is probably what the BBC documentary title is. This article was not done with these things in mind and I think that it's fine if we toss it (and create something else, maybe what Mikenorton was considering, if necessary). We won't lose a thing with this gone.

  • Stein, R. S.; Barka, A. A.; Dieterich, J. H. (1997), "Progressive failure on the North Anatolian fault since 1939 by earthquake stress triggering" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 129, The Royal Astronomical Society: 594–604
  • King, G. C. P.; Stein, R. S.; Lin, J. (1994), "Static Stress Changes and the Triggering of Earthquakes", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84 (3), Seismological Society of America: 935–953
  • Pondard, N.; Armijo, R.; King, G. C. P.; Meyer, B.; Flerit, F. (2007), "Fault interactions in the Sea of Marmara pull-apart (North anatolian Fault): earthquake clustering and propagating earthquake sequences" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 171, The Royal Astronomical Society: 1185–1197

Dawnseeker2000 01:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining further your position and the references. I did find a review article The AD 365 Crete earthquake and possible seismic clustering during the fourth to sixth centuries AD in the Eastern Mediterranean: a review of historical and archaeological data in the Journal of Structural Geology which mentions Nur's earthquake storm hypothesis. The reviewer takes the phenomenon of an earthquake storm in this context as unproven, but seems to regard it as a hypothesis worth mentioning. In another article A Physical Basis for Time Clustering of Large Earthquakes in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America the Nur 2000 paper is mentioned as the "most impressive evidence for large scale earthquake clustering". These two mentions don't make the theory mainstream, but they do indicate Nur's hypothesis is taken seriously by some geologists. Perhaps this hypothesis is not so fringe after all. But it does seem that no one in geology likes the term "earthquake storm". --Mark viking (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a random editor that prefers to use appropriate sources, I don't have any further statement, and will let the experts consider these comments. Dawnseeker2000 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Stiros paper linked to above uses the term "earthquake 'storm'", while the Chéry et al paper says "so called earthquake storm", in neither case indicating acceptance of the term. The hypothesis that there are clusters of major earthquakes is not down to Amos Nur, but the suggestion that one of these clusters was responsible for the collapse of the Late Bronze Age is, so that's a very specific thing. Note that Manuel Sintubin in 2013 (his Archaeoseismology entry to the Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering and this 2013 paper) states that "Incorporating modern concepts of seismic storms, the myth of the Late Bronze Age seismic paroxysm around 1200 BC endured to date (e.g., Nur and Cline 2000)", so that link is not unchallenged.Chiaraba et al (2011) use "earthquake storm" to describe any major case of space-time clustering of earthquakes. Kieffer et al (page 79) use "Earthquake “storms”" to describe such a cluster. I think that we need an article that covers space-time clustering of major earthquakes, possibly within the existing coulomb stress transfer article, possibly in an aritlce on sequences, just not under this title or with this content. Mikenorton (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on the references. I think we are in agreement that the term "Earthquake storm" is not in wide use in geology and that it should not be used as an umbrella term for spatial or temporal clustering. Indeed Nur's work is one bit of spatiotemporal evidence in a larger picture. I'd be happy with a merge of this article into a broader article on earthquake clustering or sequencing, or merging to the coulomb stress transfer article would be fine, too. --Mark viking (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Mike. I will note that one of my objections to this article isits being based on a singe source. The inadequacy of single sources, and their myopic POV, is shown with this gloss that "earthquake storms" are a "recently proposed theory" (ca. 2000). But now it appears this is an "old myth".
It would be fine with me if someone wanted to replace this article (i.e., post-deletion) with one about this term and the supposed "paroxysm" it refers to, but it would have to go a lot deeper than Nur. And it would have to clarify that it is NOT a seismological theory about earthquakes, but an archaeological theory about Bronze Age civilziations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps at best as I was uncertain what to say but this article is questionably solid as its own regardless. I would've also considered merging but if that's not the best option, then perhaps not and simply delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2016 (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/Earthquake_storm&oldid=1076168736"