Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Kipawa earthquake

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 keep. On second thought, an AfD with nobody but the nominator supporting deletion after 2 weeks isn't going anywhere. Sandstein 20:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Kipawa earthquake[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2000 Kipawa 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)

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

  • This was not a destructive earthquake (no injuries or deaths and superficial damage)

This USGS entry tells part of the story (select the "Impact" section for a description of where this event was felt (felt events aren't notable))

  • Note that the "guideline" Dawnseeker refers to is in fact an WP:ESSAY, NOT a guideline. This is probably a good faith error on Dawnseeker's part, editors do sometimes confuse essays with guidelines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on continuing SIGCOV per NEVENT as opposed to earthquake specific project guidelines. It seems this earthquake received attention at the time, and in a continuing fashion, to its coinciding with the millennium - which seems like arbitrary date silliness, but so are many things (e.g. Friendly Floatees). Thus, one can find:
    Bent, Allison L., et al. "The Kipawa, Quebec “Millennium” earthquake." Seismological Research Letters 73.2 (2002): 285-297.
    Doughty, M., N. Eyles, and L. Daurio. "Earthquake-triggered slumps (1935 Timiskaming M6. 2) in Lake Kipawa, Western Quebec Seismic Zone, Canada." Sedimentary Geology 228.3-4 (2010): 113-118.
    Doughty, Michael, Nick Eyles, and Louise Daurio. "Ongoing Neotectonic Activity in the Timiskaming─ Kipawa Area of Ontario and Québec." Geoscience Canada 37.3 (2010).
    Boatwright, J., and T. MacDonald. "The Variation of Brune Stress Drop with Hypocentral Depth for Moderate (3.4<= M<= 5.8) Earthquakes in Northeastern North America." AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2011.
    Bent, Allison L., and HK Claire Perry. "Depths of eastern Canadian earthquakes from regional data." Seismological Research Letters 73.2 (2002): 273-284.
    Ma, Shutian, and David W. Eaton. "Western Quebec seismic zone (Canada): Clustered, midcrustal seismicity along a Mesozoic hot spot track." Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 112.B6 (2007).
    Ma, Shutian, and Dariush Motazedian. "Studies on the June 23, 2010 north Ottawa M W 5.2 earthquake and vicinity seismicity." Journal of Seismology 16.3 (2012): 513-534.
    Fereidoni, Azadeh, and Gail M. Atkinson. "Aftershock statistics for earthquakes in the St. Lawrence Valley." Seismological Research Letters 85.5 (2014): 1125-1136.
    Ma, Shutian, and Pascal Audet. "The 5.2 magnitude earthquake near Ladysmith, Quebec, 17 May 2013: implications for the seismotectonics of the Ottawa–Bonnechere Graben." Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 51.5 (2014): 439-451.
    As well as [1], [2].
    Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response – @Icewhiz: What don't these sources talk about? Dawnseeker2000 21:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz:, these papers don't discuss substantial effects. This was not a destructive earthquake, but the Canadian scientists leapt at the chance to take a close look at the event nevertheless. Do you want to look at each source individually to see how it could be applied to the article? Dawnseeker2000 00:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: Lots of earthquakes have been studied and have dedicated journal articles, but many of them don't qualify as encyclopedia articles, so what do these papers discuss that make this a notable earthquake? Dawnseeker2000 13:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of notable events don't have Wikipedia articles - yet - Wikipedia is a work in progress. I would posit that irrespective of criteria which creates a presumed notability (e.g. the WP:NEARTHQUAKE essay says a magnitude of 7.0 or clearly attributable deaths) - if an event meets WP:GNG due to coverage it is notable. I for instance consider Bottle flipping to be frivolous, yet it qualifies for an article as it is covered by sources. Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: What is the content of the sources that you listed? Said another way, what part of the content implies that this EQ is notable (what are they saying?). That the sources is exist doesn't necessarily mean that the event is encyclopedic. Dawnseeker2000 07:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, nearly any topic with sustained, in-depth coverage in RSes meets GNG - irrespective of non-coverage based assessments of significance. I will note that the NEARTHQUAKE essay suggest thay earthquakes in low sesmic zones may be notable also of they do not reach the specified threshold in the essay.Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IE.M.Gregory: So another way of what you're saying is that for every earthquake that has journal articles we should have a corresponding WP article. Is that what you're saying? Dawnseeker2000 07:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: "Keep because scholarly articles and ONGOING coverage = notability." I made myself pretty clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion and I asked for clarification. There's no reason to be short with me about it. Can you please answer my question? Dawnseeker2000 04:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apology and my fuller-length response below. I sometimes forget that even editors who appear prima facie to be old Wikipedia hands, may not, in fact, be familiar with the local mores and customs peculiar to particular aspects of editing, such as AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The page references a notable event that occurred somewhere on Earth, and should be sufficient under NEVENT. I dont believe that a natural event requires casualties to gain notability. WillPeppers (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If editors in the geological field have developed a standard where people have to be killed/injured in a geological event, rather than just receive significant coverage in journals (which this obviously did have per the above editors), then that's a dumb standard - but I doubt they have. The standard is WP:GNG, we don't decide what's notable based on what we think is notable, we let reliable, independent sources determine that for us. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will respond to these comments[edit]

Off-wiki activities keeping me preoccupied lately. Please do not close discussion yet. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 00:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dawnseeker, While it is true that this earthquake does not meet project-specific guidelines, it is also true that we keep articles that fail project-specific guidelines all the time, mostly because discussion of some topics in media, books, film does occur for reasons outside the project-specific guidelines. In this case, what editors above are arguing is that because this earthquake is discussed in the sources mentioned above, and in others such as Small quake hits Kipawa area: Few feel rumbles that register 3.3: (Cramer, Brandi. North Bay Nugget; North Bay, Ont. [North Bay, Ont26 Oct 2005: A2.) "In January 2000, the same region was hit by an earthquake registering 5.2."], that seem to crop up every time an earthquake, however minor, hits this region, the cumulative coverage and user-friendliness of this article makes it a keep. Despite the fact that as earthquakes go, this one was no great shakes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still formulating the response. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 19:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

What I'm seeing with this AfD are that inexperienced editors are making statements about this situation. I can say that with confidence because the responses to their statements have included questions that have gone unanswered. The opposition to the deletion have not yet made arguments for keeping the article. None of them has experience in the earthquake article space (if I've overlooked or missed your significant contributions for some reason please post links to earthquake articles). My thinking is this: How is one supposed to decide whether an earthquake is notable or not if they've never worked on an earthquake article? This AfD is about the maintenance of a WikiProject's articles.

  • An argument against deletion is an argument for keeping and many arguments against deletion, based on policy, have been made. Specifically that this article meets WP:SIGCOV based on the coverage in journals and elsewhere and is not WP:MILL due to unusual timing/location of the quake. FOARP (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources[edit]

That scientists have an interest in a particular event and our decision to create an encyclopedia article on it do not always coincide. In other words, scientific interest and encyclopedic notability on WP aren't always the same thing. Or this question could be posed: that there are scientific papers show that the event was worthy of study in their eyes, but how and why does that also mean that it is (by default) notable in ours? This is the question that needs to be answered.

There's way more nuance about writing earthquake articles than most editors realize. That scientists are writing about earthquakes can sometimes bolster an article's potential here on WP, but the event needs to have notable aspect. Damage and/or deaths is one of the simplest ways that editors can determine notability (does the event have lasting impact?). But there are other aspects that can also be looked at in situations (like this one) that lack those obvious factors. So, what are they? That the EQ happened is not enough for an encyclopedia article. We are not an earthquake catalog that lists miscellaneous events. That would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

The question[edit]

So that is the question. What are the sources (that Icewhiz posted) saying that makes this a notable event? That this question has not been answered yet is because the involved editors are out of their comfort zone. E.M.Gregory was short with me for this very reason.

To summarize the question once more: It is the content of the sources that we're needing to look at. Said another way: there are many instances of journal articles about earthquakes for which we would not create an encyclopedia article. Dawnseeker2000 03:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: can you please supply the content of the sources so the community and closing admin can see what aspect of this event is notable? Or better yet, I guess Icewhiz should do us the favor, since he supplied the references. Thank you! Dawnseeker2000 08:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calling us "inexperienced" (I've been on here 10+ years) is not a replacement for having an argument. Scientific journals on the topic of geology are RS for this subject matter. This earthquake received significant and sustained coverage in them. WP:SIGCOV is clearly met. The notability of this earthquake has already been discussed (timing of the quake, unusual location) so it is not WP:MILL. FOARP (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: Let me state that comment again, as I see it was misinterpreted. I see some inexperienced editors in the earthquake article space. There, a few words makes all the difference in the world, doesn't it? Tell me precisely FOARP, what is it exactly about the timing? I'm not sure what that entails and haven't yet written an EQ article about an earthquake with notable timing. Also, the location? What is it about the location that makes this one notable. Alison Bent and colleagues state that the shock "lies in a cluster of 76 earthquakes located since 1935". Please expand on your statement. Dawnseeker2000 13:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Timing: it was at the turn of the Millenium (hence it being called the "millenium earthquake" in the literature). Location: Earthquakes in this location are infrequent enough that one coinciding with the millenium is remarkable.
BTW - you do understand that this is an AfD discussion, right? Posting an AfD explicitly invites comments from other editors, editors who need not be (and ideally aren't) related to the subject matter. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by people other than Dawnseeker2000.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 6 December 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/2000_Kipawa_earthquake&oldid=872354017"