Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1998 Ryukyu Islands earthquake: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:25, 22 June 2010

1998 Ryukyu Islands earthquake

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

Disputed PROD. However this is a minor earthquake with dubious notability that resulted in no damage or injuries, and so this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT. "1998 Ryukyu Islands earthquake" appears to be a title made up by the article creator to make it sound more important. An earthquake recording a maximum intensity of shindo 3 is a frequent and unremarkable event in Japan (at least seven have occurred in Japan in June 2010 already (see Yahoo Japan record)). --DAJF (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / merge. The article contains two distinct (albeit small) RS about the subject and as such it passes WP:GNG. That no damages or injuries occurred is irrelevant, as it is the fact that it is a frequent event -notable does NOT mean "unique". The problem of the title can be dealt with editing, and as such is not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. That said, the article would be probably best merged in some list of minor earthquakes. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep I created this entry. I do not agree on the provided reason for deletion: shindo 3 is not significant. Again, as I have said in the talk page of another earthquake event page, (1) intensity is not a good criterion for the significance or importance of an earthquake (especially this earthquake is as strong as M_w 7.5, and (2) shindo 3 is strong enough to cause damage.

In fact, in the English entry of Yonaguni, a strong submarine earthquake in 1998 is mentioned. I suspect that it refers to the same earthquake.
Keep Excellent almanac type entry.
As for the criteria for being significant, imaging that a M9.0 earthquake happens in some place far away from any major human settlement. It may not leave records of "impressive" intensity, but it is definately not "insignificant". Hence intensity is definately not a suitable criteria. If you look up the USGS historical earthquake records, you'll find that this is one of the strongest events in that year. It is definately not a "minor" earthquake. Qrfqr (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *In fact, in the English entry of Yonaguni, a strong submarine earthquake in 1998 is mentioned. I suspect that it refers to the same earthquake.
+*'''Keep''' Excellent almanac type entry.
 *As for the criteria for being significant, imaging that a M9.0 earthquake happens in some place far away from any major human settlement. It may not leave records of "impressive" intensity, but it is definately not "insignificant". Hence intensity is definately not a suitable criteria. If you look up the USGS historical earthquake records, you'll find that this is one of the strongest events in that year. It is definately not a "minor" earthquake. [[User:Qrfqr|Qrfqr]] ([[User talk:Qrfqr|talk]]) 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)