Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/2007 Alum Rock earthquake: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:09, 23 December 2018 editExcelse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users691 edits →2007 Alum Rock earthquake← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:23, 28 December 2018 edit undoRL0919 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators75,590 edits →2007 Alum Rock earthquake: Closed as keep (XFDcloser) 
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫ ===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}
<!--Template:Afd top


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. Sources provided in the discussion appear to satisfy both ] and the suggested criteria in the essay at ]. ] (]) 20:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
⚫ ===]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|2007 Alum Rock earthquake}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|2007 Alum Rock earthquake}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 11: Line 16:
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)</small> :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)</small> :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep and Comment''' I have been avoiding these earthquake AfDs, because the earthquake wikiproject seem determined to delete many articles that meet ], and even some that meet their own criteria. This nomination is a classic example. How can you say "No encyclopedic or education entry can be created" when an encyclopaedic entry exists? How can scientific interest, as shown in the existence of reliable sources, not align with encyclopaedic notability? In this case, in addition to the sources included in the article, I also find 'Geodetically inferred coseismic and postseismic slip due to the M 5.4 31 October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake', ''Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America'', 2009, J. R. Murray-Moraleda and R.W. Simpson , 'The 2007 M5.4 Alum Rock, California, earthquake: Implications for future earthquakes on the central and southern Calaveras Fault', ''JGR Solid Earth'', 2010, by David H. Oppenheimer, William H. Bakun et al , 'Response of Alum Rock springs to the October 30, 2007 Alum Rock earthquake and implications for the origin of increased discharge after earthquakes', ''Geofluids'', 2009, Michael Manga and Joel Rowland , 'Moderate Earthquake Ground-Motion Validation in the San Francisco Bay Area' ''Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America'', April 2010, by Ahyi Kim, Douglas S. Dreger, and Shawn Larsen . Definitely meets ]. The previous AfD for an article about this 31 October 2007 earthquake was started on 31 October 2007. Clearly, the editors who thought it was not notable, and would never be notable, did not have crystal balls - the existence of articles published several years after the event is evidence of its notability. ] (]) 14:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC) *'''Keep''' I have been avoiding these earthquake AfDs, because the earthquake wikiproject seem determined to delete many articles that meet ], and even some that meet their own criteria. This nomination is a classic example. How can you say "No encyclopedic or education entry can be created" when an encyclopaedic entry exists? How can scientific interest, as shown in the existence of reliable sources, not align with encyclopaedic notability? In this case, in addition to the sources included in the article, I also find 'Geodetically inferred coseismic and postseismic slip due to the M 5.4 31 October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake', ''Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America'', 2009, J. R. Murray-Moraleda and R.W. Simpson , 'The 2007 M5.4 Alum Rock, California, earthquake: Implications for future earthquakes on the central and southern Calaveras Fault', ''JGR Solid Earth'', 2010, by David H. Oppenheimer, William H. Bakun et al , 'Response of Alum Rock springs to the October 30, 2007 Alum Rock earthquake and implications for the origin of increased discharge after earthquakes', ''Geofluids'', 2009, Michael Manga and Joel Rowland , 'Moderate Earthquake Ground-Motion Validation in the San Francisco Bay Area' ''Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America'', April 2010, by Ahyi Kim, Douglas S. Dreger, and Shawn Larsen . Definitely meets ]. The previous AfD for an article about this 31 October 2007 earthquake was started on 31 October 2007. Clearly, the editors who thought it was not notable, and would never be notable, did not have crystal balls - the existence of articles published several years after the event is evidence of its notability. ] (]) 14:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I feel odd !voting here since I created the article, but I concur with pretty much everything ] said above. <span style="font-family: Optima;">''']''']</span> 16:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC) *'''Comment''' - I feel odd !voting here since I created the article, but I concur with pretty much everything ] said above. <span style="font-family: Optima;">''']''']</span> 16:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Still a memorable earthquake per reliable sources. ] (]) 13:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Still a memorable earthquake per reliable sources. ] (]) 13:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. ], I agree with RebeccaGreen on this deletion mania of useful, well sourced earthquakes, including this one.] (]) 22:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not close. Thank you. ] 22:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
:*] reminder. ] of a topic is admirable, but a STEWARD does not OWN that which he helps to manage.] (]) 23:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 20:23, 28 December 2018

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. Sources provided in the discussion appear to satisfy both WP:GNG and the suggested criteria in the essay at Misplaced Pages:Notability (earthquakes). RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

2007 Alum Rock earthquake

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2007 Alum Rock 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)

Minimal effects and no lasting impact. No encyclopedic or education entry can be created. This is a good example of scientific interest not aligning with encyclopedic notability Dawnseeker2000 20:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

See also:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I have been avoiding these earthquake AfDs, because the earthquake wikiproject seem determined to delete many articles that meet WP:GNG, and even some that meet their own criteria. This nomination is a classic example. How can you say "No encyclopedic or education entry can be created" when an encyclopaedic entry exists? How can scientific interest, as shown in the existence of reliable sources, not align with encyclopaedic notability? In this case, in addition to the sources included in the article, I also find 'Geodetically inferred coseismic and postseismic slip due to the M 5.4 31 October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake', Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2009, J. R. Murray-Moraleda and R.W. Simpson , 'The 2007 M5.4 Alum Rock, California, earthquake: Implications for future earthquakes on the central and southern Calaveras Fault', JGR Solid Earth, 2010, by David H. Oppenheimer, William H. Bakun et al , 'Response of Alum Rock springs to the October 30, 2007 Alum Rock earthquake and implications for the origin of increased discharge after earthquakes', Geofluids, 2009, Michael Manga and Joel Rowland , 'Moderate Earthquake Ground-Motion Validation in the San Francisco Bay Area' Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 2010, by Ahyi Kim, Douglas S. Dreger, and Shawn Larsen . Definitely meets WP:GNG. The previous AfD for an article about this 31 October 2007 earthquake was started on 31 October 2007. Clearly, the editors who thought it was not notable, and would never be notable, did not have crystal balls - the existence of articles published several years after the event is evidence of its notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I feel odd !voting here since I created the article, but I concur with pretty much everything RebeccaGreen said above. ceranthor 16:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Still a memorable earthquake per reliable sources. Excelse (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:HEY, I agree with RebeccaGreen on this deletion mania of useful, well sourced earthquakes, including this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not close. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 22:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

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.