Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 New Jersey earthquake (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:03, 7 June 2024

2024 New Jersey earthquake

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Now that the dust has settled down it is quite evident that no lasting coverage exists for this. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Run of the mill earthquake that is unnotable, this wouldn't be an article if it occurred anywhere else in the world Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons I stated in the previous nomination. This was an exceedingly rare event and regardless if it doesn’t have lasting coverage shouldn’t mean it isn’t notable. Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after.--MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rarity is not notability.

>Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after

Because the event was just news, nothing more. Notable events get reporting outside of just news.

WP:NEVENT is the relevant notability guideline here which has not been met. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we sure there is no lasting coverage? by the way, the continued aftershocks are relevant. 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continued aftershocks are not relevant to lasting coverage of the earthquake, or else this would be the '2024 New Jersey earthquakes' Traumnovelle (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftershocks were deemed relevant for the 2024 Noto earthquake and 2024 Hualien earthquake. Besides the first reference isn't even about an aftershock. --2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is about repairing the damage, routine for the event.

The two other articles have references which show lasting impact and coverage such as [1] and [2]

Also you are comparing earthquakes more than a hundred times the power with over a thousand casualties each to one that had not a single casualty. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Trout Slap The sources demonstrate global coverage in news and scientific publications. The previous AfD closed as Keep just weeks ago and nothing has changed. It's all relative. For example, at a whopping 1,803 feet (550 m), High Point (New Jersey) is an article for the tallest mountain in New Jersey, which would be a pimple in California, Colorado or Alaska. This was the strongest quake in the state in 240 years, and I'd be more than comfortable with the pace of four New Jersey earthquake articles every millennium, and the next one appearing somewhere in the 2260s. So the AfD rationalization is that it's already weeks past the earthquake and there isn't daily coverage so we need to delete the article? Time to whip out the trout and thrash it as needed. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible example, that mountain has a state park and ski park, both of which confer notability beyond simply being a mountain.

Maybe I missed a link but I do not see any scientific publications in the reference list. WP:NEVENT is the relevant guideline.

WP:EVENTCRIT, fails that.

WP:LASTING, gives quite a clear example as to why this is not notable.

WP:GEOSCOPE 'such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article'

WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is satisfied based on the scope and breadth of reliable and verifiable sources about the earthquake. The earthquake itself occurred mere weeks ago and it is far, far too soon to be whining about WP:PERSISTENCE, which explicitly says "this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not". Come back in a few years and we can discuss as a community. Until then, move on. Alansohn (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if it is too soon to determine notability then it is too soon to have an article. GNG is also a presumption of notability and the relevant criteria for this article is NEVENT. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I said the last time this article was elected. This was a very rare event, both in magnitude and location. I've still seen talks about the earthquake to this day, and I feel like this was an important event and should have a page dedicated to it. OurAfternoonMalady (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well sourced per WP:SIGCOV. It was in the news for weeks. It will likely be in annual retrospectives in December. It is still being studied academically, and is exactly the type that will be in popular culture for years. Bad nomination and arguments to delete worthy of a trout slap. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've already made my case before as I nominated it the first time, but now that no one talks about it anymore it's even more obvious it shouldn't be an article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the above keeps, as well as a comment that this was largely settled in the last AfD, nothing has changed, the arguments have not changed, the policies have not changed, and that this is largely a waste of valuable editors' time. Tduk (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 *'''Keep'''. The article is well sourced per [[WP:SIGCOV]]. It was in the news for weeks. It will likely be in annual retrospectives in December. It is still being studied academically, and is exactly the type that will be in popular culture for years. Bad nomination and arguments to delete worthy of a trout slap. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. I've already made my case before as I nominated it the first time, but now that no one talks about it anymore it's even more obvious it shouldn't be an article. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 01:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' as per all the above keeps, as well as a comment that this was largely settled in the last AfD, nothing has changed, the arguments have not changed, the policies have not changed, and that this is largely a waste of valuable editors' time. [[User:Tduk|Tduk]] ([[User talk:Tduk|talk]]) 04:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)