Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Ionian Sea earthquake

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Ionian Sea 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)

No evidence of notability per WP:NEARTHQUAKE Mikenorton (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to pass WP:GNG with articles like [1] and after the fact [2], [3] SportingFlyer talk 12:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are just media reports in the few days afterwards, articles need to have enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS. Mikenorton (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's had continual news coverage for the last week, including today. The articles don't seem routine to me. SportingFlyer talk 00:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are not suitable as references in our EQ articles because the reporters and the agencies that they work for are not authorities on EQs. Dawnseeker2000 09:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnseeker2000: That's the first time I've ever seen that argument presented in any AfD. Can you cite a policy which backs up your assertion? SportingFlyer talk 10:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use inappropriate (non-authoritative) news stories in our earthquake articles. Dawnseeker2000 08:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnseeker2000: That doesn't answer my question, especially considering at least two of the three sources I've cited are WP:RS (the Express is from the Star line of newspapers, but could still be a WP:RS). There is also continuing coverage of the event: [4] SportingFlyer talk 08:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all the news stories are from the first few days. The one that you've added from euronews reports on a state of emergency that was declared a week earlier. Apart from that there are aftershocks, just like all other earthquakes, but, without significant further damage/casualties, it doesn't make it any more notable. Still nothing to suggest "enduring notability". Mikenorton (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise notability was dependent on the extent of the damage. I would've thought a major earthquake with major international news coverage and ongoing local news coverage would have been enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 11:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several additional sources to the article as well. Clear WP:GNG pass IMO. SportingFlyer talk 11:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – When constructing an encyclopedia, and specifically regarding EQ articles, content contributors need to ask themselves: "In 25–50 years, what will the locals' memory be of the event?". In the case of this shock, it is one of many, and it does not stand out as being deadly or destructive. Yes, there were some minor effects, but in time, the Greek's memory of it will fade and become confused with the other more significant events. WP:Earthquakes is attempting to refine our collection of articles and polish the acceptable entries in our lists. The removal of this article is part of that process. Remember, WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information. It is selective. Dawnseeker2000 22:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the island was very badly damaged from a 1953 earthquake, it'll probably be something along the lines of "we shouldn't revise the building codes, there was that other earthquake in 2018." This article is one of the major earthquakes of the year and clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 23:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Looking at WP:NEARTHQUAKE, it seems that, to be notable, an earthquake has to be over magnitude 7, and/or cause deaths. However, WP:NEARTHQUAKE is an essay, not a guideline or policy - and the 1953 Zakynthos earthquake does not meet those criteria, either, suggesting that they need some rethinking. This earthquake, and the damage it caused, was reported around the world. I would consider 120 uninhabitable homes, plus damage to the port, to be significant damage. I was not aware that notability was established by trying to predict what memories of an event would be in 25-50 years time - that seems unanswerable, as who knows what might happen in those 25-50 years? And saying "it is one of many" does not seem a useful criterion to exclude it, either - there are 188 pages under the category "Mass shootings in the United States". RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1953 Ionian earthquake caused over 400 deaths, so was unarguably notable based on WP:NEARTHQUAKE. The comment about how memorable it will be, is really trying to answer the question of "enduring notability" referred to in WP:NOTNEWS. In the end, the real question is whether an earthquake causes significant damage and/or casualties. WP:NEARTHQUAKE may be an essay, but one that has been in use in determining earthquake article notability for more than eight years. There have been no suggested changes during that period, so it seems to be doing something right (for clarity, I drew these "guidelines" up in response to a series of AfDs on minor earthquake following quite extensive discussion - see that relevant talk page). Mikenorton (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, the 1953 Ionian earthquake article is missing significant information - it makes no mention of any deaths at all. As I said, I would consider the amount of damage the 2018 Ionian Sea earthquake caused (as described) to be significant, but I don't know if there are any guidelines about what constitutes significant damage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information was missing, although I've now added something on the death toll. As to what constitutes "significant damage" - that's a matter of debate. Mikenorton (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the essay is "doing something right," essays (nor, even, policy-confirmed SNGs) do not take precedence over WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However to quote from WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not". The latter policy includes a requirement for "enduring notability", which you have failed to establish. Mikenorton (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A requirement which is part of WP:NOTNEWS - and considering this is one of the major earthquakes of the year, was reported internationally, and is not a routine news story, clearly does not apply here. SportingFlyer talk 10:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - NEARTHQUAKE isn't a policy so we should go with GNG - and from what I see, it does follow. Juxlos (talk) 18:43, 17 November 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.