595:"According to Knowledge, a large quake hit this area in 2000, called the Kipawa Quake. It struck with a magnitude of 5.2 at 6:22 a.m. on January 1. It occurred in the Western Quebec Seismic Zone. The main shock epicenter was located in Lake Kipawa about 10 km (6 mi) north of TĂ©miscaming Quebec and 70 km (43 mi) northeast of North Bay. The shaking associated with this earthquake was strongest within 50 km (31 mi) of the epicenter. It was felt in TĂ©miscaming, North Bay and as far away as Toronto, making it one of the most significant earthquakes in Canada in 2000. The earthquake was triggered by major thrust faults associated with the Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben.
889:
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.
921:
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
754:
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
802:
Small quake hits Kipawa area: Few feel rumbles that register 3.3: (Cramer, Brandi. North Bay Nugget; North Bay, Ont. , 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
888:
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
799:
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
536:
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
1046:
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
929:
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
1047:
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.
362:- 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.
456:, 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?
942:
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.
599:. I suppose I could argue that we keep articles like this so that journalists can file breaking news stories without breaking a sweat doing a lot of research. Or, we could just accept the fact that folks expect us to have an article on an earthquake in Canada.
398:
401:
1008:
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.
946:
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.
522:
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.
209:
393:
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):
930:
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
378:
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.
1079:
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.
476:
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?
384:
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).
372:
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.
247:
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
735:
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.
489:
Lots of notable events don't have
Knowledge articles - yet - Knowledge is a work in progress. I would posit that irrespective of criteria which creates a presumed notability (e.g. the
922:
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.
203:
162:
387:
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.
375:
Doughty, Michael, Nick Eyles, and Louise Daurio. "Ongoing
Neotectonic Activity in the Timiskaming─ Kipawa Area of Ontario and Québec." Geoscience Canada 37.3 (2010).
893:
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
624:
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?
390:
Fereidoni, Azadeh, and Gail M. Atkinson. "Aftershock statistics for earthquakes in the St. Lawrence Valley." Seismological
Research Letters 85.5 (2014): 1125-1136.
339:
561:
319:
109:
987:
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
135:
130:
94:
381:
Bent, Allison L., and HK Claire Perry. "Depths of eastern
Canadian earthquakes from regional data." Seismological Research Letters 73.2 (2002): 273-284.
139:
169:
263:
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))
122:
675:
to be old Knowledge hands, may not, in fact, be familiar with the local mores and customs peculiar to particular aspects of editing, such as AfD.
593:
589:
658:
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?
844:
252:
224:
240:
925:
There's way more nuance about writing earthquake articles than most editors realize. That scientists are writing about earthquakes
584:
because scholarly articles and ONGOING coverage = notability. I checked to see if it still gets into the news cycle, and it does.
191:
1013:
is clearly met. The notability of this earthquake has already been discussed (timing of the quake, unusual location) so it is not
299:, NOT a guideline. This is probably a good faith error on Dawnseeker's part, editors do sometimes confuse essays with guidelines.
759:, we don't decide what's notable based on what we think is notable, we let reliable, independent sources determine that for us.
271:
89:
82:
17:
1073:
369:
Bent, Allison L., et al. "The Kipawa, Quebec “Millennium” earthquake." Seismological Research Letters 73.2 (2002): 285-297.
801:
185:
1130:
1089:
1055:
1026:
999:
973:
955:
910:
877:
860:
829:
812:
787:
768:
744:
722:
684:
666:
653:
638:
632:
608:
573:
546:
531:
510:
484:
464:
444:
414:
351:
331:
308:
281:
126:
103:
99:
64:
1076:). Location: Earthquakes in this location are infrequent enough that one coinciding with the millenium is remarkable.
1104:
701:
181:
52:. On second thought, an AfD with nobody but the nominator supporting deletion after 2 weeks isn't going anywhere.
1147:
40:
931:
231:
118:
70:
267:
1143:
969:
856:
808:
740:
680:
649:
604:
490:
304:
36:
619:
569:
197:
1048:
992:
948:
822:
780:
659:
625:
524:
477:
457:
437:
347:
327:
274:
217:
779:
Off-wiki activities keeping me preoccupied lately. Please do not close discussion yet. Thank you.
671:
My apology and my fuller-length response below. I sometimes forget that even editors who appear
542:
506:
410:
363:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1142:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1010:
982:
965:
894:
852:
804:
736:
676:
645:
600:
300:
1085:
1022:
906:
873:
848:
764:
566:
498:
296:
248:
1121:
1014:
898:
713:
343:
323:
55:
961:
756:
494:
243:
is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles
259:
This was not a destructive earthquake (no injuries or deaths and superficial damage)
988:
538:
517:
502:
471:
451:
431:
406:
493:
essay says a magnitude of 7.0 or clearly attributable deaths) - if an event meets
156:
797:
While it is true that this earthquake does not meet project-specific guidelines,
585:
1081:
1041:
1018:
902:
869:
760:
501:
to be frivolous, yet it qualifies for an article as it is covered by sources.
991:
should do us the favor, since he supplied the references. Thank you!
590:
Great shakes...looks like we got hit by an earthquake this morning!
1074:
hence it being called the "millenium earthquake" in the literature
800:
discussed in the sources mentioned above, and in others such as
1138:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1107:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
704:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
897:
based on the coverage in journals and elsewhere and is not
295:
that the "guideline" Dawnseeker refers to is in fact an
497:
due to coverage it is notable. I for instance consider
152:
148:
144:
216:
1115:
Needs more input by people other than Dawnseeker2000.
1118:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
710:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1150:). No further edits should be made to this page.
803:as earthquakes go, this one was no great shakes.
637:As I said: "Keep because scholarly articles and
560:Note: This discussion has been included in the
338:Note: This discussion has been included in the
318:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1072:Timing: it was at the turn of the Millenium (
901:due to unusual timing/location of the quake.
230:
8:
340:list of History-related deletion discussions
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
562:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
320:list of Events-related deletion discussions
559:
337:
317:
821:Still formulating the response. Thanks,
436:What don't these sources talk about?
7:
255:because of the following concerns:
845:Knowledge:Notability (earthquakes)
24:
95:Introduction to deletion process
272:United States Geological Survey
268:M 4.7 - southern Quebec, Canada
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
868:- it is an essay, not policy.
775:Will respond to these comments
1:
769:14:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
745:13:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
723:08:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
667:04:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
654:12:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
633:07:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
609:17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
574:13:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
547:04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
532:07:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
511:13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
485:13:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
465:00:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
445:21:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
415:12:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
352:08:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
332:08:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
282:04:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
1131:20:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
1090:13:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
1056:13:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
1027:12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
1000:08:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
974:11:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
956:03:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
911:12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
878:12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
861:20:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
830:19:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
813:15:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
788:00:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
685:15:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
309:14:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
65:20:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
643:I made myself pretty clear.
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1167:
592:, but wait, there's more,
1140:Please do not modify it.
641:coverage = notability."
32:Please do not modify it.
366:). Thus, one can find:
241:WikiProject Earthquakes
119:2000 Kipawa earthquake
71:2000 Kipawa earthquake
253:notability guidelines
83:Articles for deletion
1113:Relisting comment:
1133:
1129:
932:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
725:
721:
576:
364:Friendly Floatees
354:
334:
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
63:
1158:
1128:
1126:
1119:
1117:
1110:
1108:
1053:
1045:
997:
986:
953:
827:
785:
720:
718:
711:
709:
707:
705:
664:
630:
623:
529:
521:
482:
475:
462:
455:
442:
435:
279:
235:
234:
220:
172:
160:
142:
80:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1148:deletion review
1134:
1122:
1120:
1103:
1101:
1049:
1039:
993:
980:
949:
940:
919:
886:
823:
781:
777:
726:
714:
712:
700:
698:
660:
626:
617:
525:
515:
499:Bottle flipping
478:
469:
458:
449:
438:
429:
275:
177:
168:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1164:
1162:
1153:
1152:
1116:
1111:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1077:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1051:Dawnseeker2000
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1003:
1002:
995:Dawnseeker2000
977:
976:
951:Dawnseeker2000
939:
936:
918:
915:
914:
913:
885:
882:
881:
880:
863:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
825:Dawnseeker2000
816:
815:
783:Dawnseeker2000
776:
773:
772:
771:
748:
747:
728:
708:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
662:Dawnseeker2000
628:Dawnseeker2000
612:
611:
588:, 16 May 2018
578:
577:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
527:Dawnseeker2000
491:WP:NEARTHQUAKE
480:Dawnseeker2000
467:
460:Dawnseeker2000
447:
440:Dawnseeker2000
420:
419:
418:
417:
404:
395:
391:
388:
385:
382:
379:
376:
373:
370:
356:
355:
335:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
285:
284:
277:Dawnseeker2000
261:
260:
238:
237:
174:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1163:
1151:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1136:
1135:
1132:
1127:
1125:
1114:
1109:
1106:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
998:
996:
990:
984:
979:
978:
975:
971:
967:
963:
960:
959:
958:
957:
954:
952:
944:
937:
935:
933:
928:
923:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
891:
890:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
864:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
839:
838:
831:
828:
826:
820:
819:
818:
817:
814:
810:
806:
798:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
786:
784:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
753:
750:
749:
746:
742:
738:
734:
731:
730:
729:
724:
719:
717:
706:
703:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
669:
668:
665:
663:
657:
656:
655:
651:
647:
644:
640:
636:
635:
634:
631:
629:
621:
616:
615:
614:
613:
610:
606:
602:
598:
596:
591:
587:
583:
580:
579:
575:
572:
571:
568:
563:
558:
548:
544:
540:
535:
534:
533:
530:
528:
519:
514:
513:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:
486:
483:
481:
473:
468:
466:
463:
461:
453:
448:
446:
443:
441:
433:
427:
424:
423:
422:
421:
416:
412:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
368:
367:
365:
361:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
316:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
280:
278:
273:
269:
266:
265:
264:
258:
257:
256:
254:
250:
246:
242:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
171:
167:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1139:
1137:
1123:
1112:
1102:
1050:
994:
950:
945:
941:
938:The question
926:
924:
920:
887:
865:
840:
824:
796:
795:Dawnseeker,
782:
778:
751:
732:
727:
715:
699:
672:
661:
642:
627:
620:IE.M.Gregory
594:
581:
565:
526:
479:
459:
439:
425:
359:
292:
276:
262:
251:and our own
244:
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
165:
76:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
983:E.M.Gregory
966:E.M.Gregory
917:The sources
853:E.M.Gregory
805:E.M.Gregory
737:WillPeppers
677:E.M.Gregory
673:prima facie
646:E.M.Gregory
601:E.M.Gregory
586:BayToday.ca
397:As well as
301:E.M.Gregory
204:free images
1124:Sandstein
716:Sandstein
537:the essay.
58:Sandstein
1144:talk page
1011:WP:SIGCOV
895:WP:SIGCOV
344:DannyS712
324:DannyS712
37:talk page
1146:or in a
1105:Relisted
849:WP:ESSAY
702:Relisted
426:Response
394:439-451.
297:WP:ESSAY
249:WP:EVENT
163:View log
104:glossary
39:or in a
1015:WP:MILL
989:Icewhiz
899:WP:MILL
639:ONGOING
539:Icewhiz
518:Icewhiz
503:Icewhiz
472:Icewhiz
452:Icewhiz
432:Icewhiz
407:Icewhiz
210:WPÂ refs
198:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
962:WP:OWN
884:Issues
847:is an
757:WP:GNG
570:Sailor
495:WP:GNG
182:Google
140:delete
1082:FOARP
1042:FOARP
1019:FOARP
903:FOARP
870:FOARP
866:Quite
843:that
761:FOARP
225:JSTOR
186:books
170:Stats
157:views
149:watch
145:links
16:<
1086:talk
1023:talk
970:talk
907:talk
874:talk
857:talk
841:Note
809:talk
765:talk
752:Keep
741:talk
733:Keep
681:talk
650:talk
605:talk
582:Keep
543:talk
507:talk
411:talk
360:Keep
348:talk
328:talk
305:talk
293:Note
218:FENS
192:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
50:keep
927:can
755:is
567:Sam
232:TWL
161:– (
1088:)
1025:)
1017:.
972:)
934:.
909:)
876:)
859:)
811:)
767:)
743:)
683:)
652:)
607:)
564:.
545:)
509:)
428:–
413:)
400:,
350:)
342:.
330:)
322:.
307:)
270:–
245:or
212:)
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
1084:(
1044::
1040:@
1021:(
985::
981:@
968:(
964:.
905:(
872:(
855:(
851:.
807:(
763:(
739:(
679:(
648:(
622::
618:@
603:(
597:"
541:(
520::
516:@
505:(
474::
470:@
454::
450:@
434::
430:@
409:(
403:.
346:(
326:(
303:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
166:·
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.