148:
that is irrelevant. Only notability it. If you google the word earthquake you get this event at #2. If you look at the USGS homepage its on the main page with the list of large and significant global seismic events. Of which only 4 or 5 are there. Not 50 or 20 or even 10 as would be suggest by this happening all the time. Furthermore this AfD seems to me to be in bad faith since this editor frequently has problems with me and only added it up for deletion once i mentioned it on the
Richmond, California disasters' section. I have provided citations within the article and on the talk page.
1056:- Non-notable, minor quake with no historical significance. There were no injuries and minor property damage. I live in the bay area and we have small quakes all the time. This is only receiving news coverage because it's a recent event and is just a bit stronger than most quakes in the area. I agree with other commenters that this would be better served by moving the article to Wikinews. --
308:
newsites, and hosting an article on such a subject could be helpful to people looking into a regions earthquake history and damage and details that are not included in the statistics of the USGS. I would also add that, all news events only happen once. The Rose Bowl only happens once. A coup détat happens on a single day. Doesnt mean its not of importance to the public record.
937:
earthquakes such as this every year, they wouldnt all have an article, there isnt even an article for every language or high school all of which are automatically considered notable, this encyclopedia has over a million articles, the potential for a few thousand more a year would hardly be eclipsed by the tens or hundreds of thousands added annually on various other topics
1238:
This flurry of news coverage just the sort of "15 minutes of fame" which distinguihes between newspapers and encyclopedias, wich look for more long term coverage of an event, or for it to have some enduring effects on society. Merchandise thrown off shelves and people being inconvenienced does not make the cut. See also the essay
606:. Although I would support deletion of an earthquake with no significant impact, this one did cause a power failure to a non-trial number of customers, and more importantly initially shut down BART, and required resorting to manual control to restore service. The article also claims Geologists cited this event in relation to the
1211:, cited in support of the deletion of this article, is primarily concerned with articles which give excessive publicity to negative incidents in the lives of otherwise non-notable people. It is not an appropriate justification for deleting a well-referenced article concerning an earthquake that obviously has no
1285:
Although several of the references in the article credit AP, which would be covered by Note-4, CNN, Tribune, and LAT did not credit AP, which indicates independent reporting, so Note-4 is moot. All of the refs are from the same day, which would raise long term significance issues. I went looking for
1260:
WP:NOTNEWS is completely irrelvant, it is original reasearch and it is only the opinion of an editor and those whom agree with him/her, it is not policy and cannot be conisdered in this discussion. The fact that they may have had similar sources is original reasearch and conjecture on your part. You
1237:
which says "News reports. Knowledge properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article."
1113:
Who says it is too small? What WP Policy states that an earthquake must have a minimum magnitude for it to have an article? Sure it was not 6.9 but
Hurricane Beta or Alpha or Delta were similarly tiny in comparison to Katrina and even tropical storms get article when they don't even cause any damage
856:
Can't figure out if the author has never been in an earthquake, or whether he/she was in
Oakland on Friday. I agree entirely with anonymous that keeping this article opens the door. This article states: "Some people said the damage it caused was worse than the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake" For the
307:
Although weather and climate are mentioned in every place article. Thats a bad example, weather changes constantly and isnt a major event. I think this isnt going to be talked about just today. Rememeber also wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Information about moderate earthquakes may fade from
1246:
says "Note 4: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a
147:
4.2 earthquakes are not common at all. The occur every 5 to 10 years. This earthquake is involved in newsworthy events. Has caused thousands of dollars in damage. Causes power outages to thousands of people. Shut down the BART system. What articles "open the door to" are not relevant on AfD pages,
610:, and the content could possibly be merged there (although that article is already quite long). Formulaic criteria for notability have been rejected by community consensus, so arguments that earthquakes of magnutude X are notable or non-notable should not be given any significant weight (see also
1290:
which would raise further concern. I did find one follow-up article, but the only thing there was this: "Geologists have long said the
Hayward Fault is primed for a major (magnitude 7 or higher) and that the chances of one happening within the next 30 years is high." So I have changed my vote to
418:
it also says "Wikinews, not
Knowledge, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events7. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not
333:
Seriously there are thousands of those 4.0 earthquakes out there per year, wikipedia isn't the place to list all those earthquakes. Cholga, you have the wrong view for the project, an article isn't created for every news event out there. That is what wikinews was created for. Cholga also see
936:
COMMENT a 4.2 earthquake is NOT a 4.0 earthquake. A 4.1 earthquake is 30 times stronger than a 4.0 and a 4.2 is 30 times stronger than that! There is not policy stating that 4.2 earthquakes are too small and not notable, and what might happen is not wikipedia policy. Even if there were 2,000
723:
I think this goes to show that this isn't trivial coverage, and not local, nor national coverage, this earthquake received international attention, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, why not include earthquakes, I believe people may want to look into this earthquake years from now and an
755:, when a news source reprints a wire service report, that does not count towards "multiple" coverage. Independent coverage by different wire services, and independent reporting by California papers, does help, but if all it gets is a flurry of coverage it is still more suited to Wikinews.
187:
1261:
are speculating which should be avoided. Furthermore that goes for any story, anyone who has interviewed scott peterson who writes a story would be writing the same story according to that (which i feel is flawed) logic. And the fact is they are/were not and the same goes for this case
799:
article. Besides, this has nothing to do with news coverage, which will dissipate within the next few days, and everything to do with the historical significance of the quake. This quake is non-notable because it didn't have any significant long-term impact like, for example, the
1305:- a 4.2 earthquake is not uncommon, but will of course generate news coverage. Absent any significant after-effects from earthquake, this is no different than many other earhtquakles of the same magnitude thus making it a wikinews article and not a wikipedia article. --
133:
This article, if kept, would potentially open the door to many insignificant articles cluttering up
Knowledge. Earthquakes of about the magnitude of the one described here are a common occurrence in the Bay Area. This is in no way notable enough to warrant keeping.
570:
So then we will have to do articles on earthquakes that have done no damage at all or having a scale of under 5? I don't know the criterias but only those which caused several fatalities, major to severe damage or having a scale of 6 or 7 or more should have
1069:
I think there is very much a historical significance here, people remember these things, they want to look into them too, yes in the future. The property damage was in the tens of thousands of dollars. This will stay in the news as estimates begin to be
1021:, I realised that 4.0 is not the same as 4.2. I used that number for the sake of using a whole number. To have a compromise, allow me to use this sentence instead: "If we were to include every earthquake that ever happened that was
1187:, it's more of a news story than an encyclopedia article. If there turns out to be a longer-lasting significance (like improved building codes, lots of structures needing to be rebuilt, and others), we can always move it back. --
293:
A small article for a small earthquake is OK. To play devil's advocate, however, I should point out that the today's weather is also the subject of international coverage, but it isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article. -
808:
quakes. Unlike the Loma Prieta quake, this quake has caused no fatalities, no casualties, no loss of homes, and only minor property damage. It's no different from the hundreds of quakes that happen around the world every day.
1095:: This quake is not notable and shouldn't be in wikipedia. But it does belongs in wikinews. Regarding the notability of a 4.2 quake, it is too small compares to some other destructive quake like a 6.9. Therefore not notable.
774:. Most people here who are !voting delete are not saying that it hasn't been reported, but rather that not every single earthquake that ever happens is notable. Considering how many earthquakes there are every day, even when
782:, as this one is, at 4.2, all our non-earthquake articles would be thoroughly dwarfed by the sheer weight of our earthquake ones. Put simply, this earthquake is not notable enough. You could also count this as me saying
1159:
If there are so many thousands of them (ones just like this one) shouldnt a few more have happened allready and have ursurped this one in the news? A lot happen in very rural areas and go largely missed, no damage nor
1143:. Even at 4.2+ there are thousands of such earthquakes a year. This is just a one-off news story that will never again be the subject of non-trivial coverage. If it ever is, write about it then, but we're not news.
423:
says "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Items in the day's news are more suited to
Wikinews than Knowledge.
394:"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.
708:
363:
a newspaper. News media report any detectable earthquake without making a clear distinction of how much the shaking increases for every unit increase in the magnitude. I didn't see any listed at
238:
Not many caused damage. Okay so there are many, but not many in this area. This is the
Hayward Fault not the San Andreas. And it has gotten worldwide attention. CNN International, Turkish news
778:, if we were to have an article on all of those, this encyclopedia would be many, many times larger than it currently is. If we were to include every earthquake that ever happened that was
1318:
Even if they happen all the time worldwide, they don't happen here in the Bay Area all the time nor this fault. The last time this area had such an earthquake was in 1987, 20 years ago!
462:
The
Richter scale is logarithmic, and so calling this a "4.0" is a bit more inaccurate than you might think. I'm not sure any of the frequences of occurance listed above are accurate.
751:
Basically, you have shown that an
Associated Press wire service story went out and that many news services routinely reproduced it in whole or in part, or with minor tweaks. Per
99:
94:
103:
86:
126:
359:
Meh. Minor earthquake, minimal property damage, no injuries reported in the article. At this point it seems no more significant than a thunderstorm. Knowledge is not
1247:
news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Are all the quoted sources independently writing articles, or are they just reprinting news service releases?
795:
That list of links isn't very impressive because the article in nearly all of them is the same. That's because all of those papers are republishing the same
367:
lower than about 5.9 magnitude, more than an order of magnitude larger in movement and more than an order of magnitude less frequent.If this is part of the
866:
Yes and that statement is sourced, for some people the damage was far worse, oaklands, Montclaire District bisinesses suffered large losses of merchandise.
1295:, because the event is notable in that context. This will also preserve the history in case the event does become notable later. 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1207:, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
630:
526:
applies to all discussions, however, so try to avoid commenting on the experience of an editor, which has nothing to do with his actual points. --
646:
1233:
which might seem to be satisfied by a flurry of news reports on one day or a few days about a small earthquake, we must balance the policy
478:
375:), in which the article gets shortened and merged to that article. None of the earthquakes presently listed there are lower than 5.6.
658:
442:, looking for something more notable than the average 4.0 earthquake and not finding it. These are simply too common to be of note.
1309:
1274:
1251:
1219:
1191:
1173:
1152:
1131:
1104:
1083:
1060:
1040:
999:
968:
950:
927:
909:
879:
861:
829:
813:
790:
759:
737:
618:
591:
575:
562:
530:
514:
493:
454:
428:
409:
379:
351:
321:
298:
283:
264:
251:
233:
215:
179:
161:
138:
68:
1025:, as this one is, at 4.2, all our non-earthquake articles would be thoroughly dwarfed by the sheer weight of our earthquake ones."
1242:
which reflects the views of some editors on the difference between events being "newsworthy" and them being "encyclopedic." Also
846:
489:
I live just a few miles from the epicenter and slept through the "devatation". This is much ado about nothing by local media. --
17:
1287:
682:
842:
724:
encyclopedia article would be the best place to look, no one goes to the libarary anyone to look through articles in papers.
90:
893:
1268:
1167:
1125:
1077:
993:
944:
903:
873:
731:
506:
is not local Media nor is CNN. Your personal experiances or better put lack therof are irrelevant since they constitute
403:
315:
245:
204:
155:
1200:
82:
74:
654:
626:
503:
686:
1333:
1100:
36:
919:
The Boston Herald and USATODAY links are to the same AP story, which does not count as "multiple" coverage, per
1332:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1148:
964:
474:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
211:
At the time of this posting that number has dropped to 11 articles (or 15 if you include the duplicates). --
696:
260:? Although the quake isn't important in and of itself, it does signify activity along the Hayward Fault. --
801:
176:
135:
775:
584:
555:. Earthquakes less than 6.0 with little or no casualties or damage is not significant or notable enough.
1184:
838:
805:
704:
230:
885:
511:
587:. Every day there are several. This one is just not big enough to be notable on any long-term basis. —
1204:
1096:
674:
466:
415:
389:
192:
1144:
1037:
960:
834:
826:
787:
611:
588:
527:
470:
634:
346:
278:
1292:
1057:
810:
700:
670:
603:
451:
368:
261:
257:
212:
889:
638:
1183:
to Wikinews. Unless there's some long-lasting significance to this earthquake, as happened in
662:
1239:
689:
559:
490:
349:
281:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1263:
1162:
1120:
1072:
988:
959:
is about 30 times more powerful. This is something like 4.5 times more powerful than a 4.0.
939:
898:
868:
796:
726:
552:
398:
310:
240:
226:
200:
150:
678:
857:
record, the 1989 quake caused six billion dollars worth of damage and killed 62 people.
858:
229:
suggests a frequency on the San Andreas fault of about 40 per year at that magnitude.
1234:
1212:
1208:
771:
767:
712:
692:
607:
523:
447:
420:
372:
360:
335:
295:
57:
49:
1216:
1114:
whatsoever. What does it matter what this quake wasn't shouldnt it matter what it,
615:
572:
556:
542:
519:
507:
502:
Today is July 22 and it still tops the list on a google search for Earthquake. The
120:
716:
666:
1248:
1243:
1230:
1188:
924:
920:
756:
752:
425:
376:
343:
196:
62:
53:
364:
175:
earthquake, and in this case they were back up running in less than an hour. +
642:
1306:
650:
443:
720:
1319:
60:
cannot apply as earthquakes are not people, let alone living people. —
510:
Original Research and emotions and lifer experiances are not policy.
419:
necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability."
923:, and the Pensacola link leads to an unrelated story at this time.
171:
So far as BART shutting down goes, that's standard procedure after
1326:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
371:
then there could be a Smerge (slight merge, a term invented by
546:
444:
There are around 12,000 4.0 earthquakes worldwide every year
766:
Knowledge is not a paper encyclopedia, true, but this does
1018:
116:
112:
108:
225:
4.x earthquakes are indeed pretty common. Figure 6.14
1199:-- The large number of reliable sources provided in
446:. They release less energy than a single tornado. --
772:
we should include everything that has ever happened
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
522:applies to articles, not to deletion discussions.
982:Either way my point is that a 4.2. earthquake is
896:, it has received widespread coverage nationally.
1336:). No further edits should be made to this page.
256:How about moving it into the article about the
186:There are 382 articles about it on google news.
277:Explain why?, that isn't a reason for keeping
8:
1203:establish the notability of this event per
1036:, and my point largely remains intact. --
1201:July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake#Notes
585:earthquakes over magnitude 5 worldwide
52:being the more powerful argument than
7:
338:, which your current sig violate.
24:
986:a 4.0 earthquake, not even close.
1205:Knowledge's notability guideline
83:July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake
75:July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake
776:only including 5.0+ earthquakes
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
342:is my opinion, for violating
955:Um, no. You're wrong. Each
1353:
274:I say keep it...for now.
1310:17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1275:22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1252:19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1220:00:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1192:15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
1174:22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1153:07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
1132:22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1105:02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
1084:22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1061:02:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
1041:22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1000:22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
969:07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
951:01:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
928:19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
910:01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
880:01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
862:22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
830:20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
814:02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
791:22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
760:19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
738:20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
635:Guardian (United Kingdom)
619:19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
592:17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
576:22:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
563:19:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
531:20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
524:Avoiding personal remarks
515:20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
494:17:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
455:07:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
429:05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
410:04:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
380:04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
352:08:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
322:04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
299:03:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
284:08:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
265:02:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
252:01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
234:01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
216:01:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
180:01:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
162:00:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
139:00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
69:01:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1329:Please do not modify it.
583:. I view an RSS feed of
32:Please do not modify it.
825:this article is notable
1291:Merge and redirect to
1286:other refs, and found
1229:against the guideline
884:Here are more sources.
721:Cleveland, Ohio leader
1185:Northridge earthquake
847:few or no other edits
675:WAND Associated Press
481:) 09:55, 21 July 2007
195:comment was added by
849:outside this topic.
414:I hear you, but in
1293:Hayward Fault Zone
894:Pensacola, Florida
604:Hayward Fault Zone
600:Merge and redirect
369:Hayward Fault Zone
1266:
1165:
1123:
1075:
1002:
991:
942:
901:
871:
850:
729:
709:Winston-Salem, NC
551:I am reminded of
483:
469:comment added by
401:
313:
243:
208:
177:ILike2BeAnonymous
153:
136:ILike2BeAnonymous
1344:
1331:
1262:
1161:
1119:
1071:
987:
981:
938:
897:
867:
832:
797:Associated Press
725:
705:Larrence, Kansas
643:San Jose Mercury
482:
463:
397:
309:
239:
190:
149:
124:
106:
65:
34:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1334:deletion review
1327:
1273:
1172:
1130:
1103:
1082:
998:
949:
908:
878:
736:
627:Chicago Tribune
464:
408:
320:
250:
191:—The preceding
160:
97:
81:
78:
63:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1350:
1348:
1339:
1338:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1313:
1312:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1267:
1255:
1254:
1223:
1222:
1194:
1177:
1176:
1166:
1156:
1155:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1124:
1108:
1107:
1099:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1076:
1064:
1063:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1038:Dreaded Walrus
1026:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
992:
974:
973:
972:
971:
943:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
902:
882:
872:
864:
851:
819:
818:
817:
816:
793:
788:Dreaded Walrus
764:
763:
762:
741:
740:
730:
621:
594:
589:David Eppstein
578:
565:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
528:Dreaded Walrus
504:Cicago Tribune
497:
496:
484:
471:Lipsticked Pig
457:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
402:
383:
382:
354:
327:
326:
325:
324:
314:
302:
301:
288:
287:
286:
269:
268:
267:
244:
236:
220:
219:
218:
183:
182:
165:
164:
154:
131:
130:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1349:
1337:
1335:
1330:
1324:
1320:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1304:
1301:
1300:
1294:
1289:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1270:Sexy Contribs
1265:
1264:¡Talk2Cholga!
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1245:
1241:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1178:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1169:Sexy Contribs
1164:
1163:¡Talk2Cholga!
1158:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:Sexy Contribs
1122:
1121:¡Talk2Cholga!
1117:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1085:
1081:
1080:
1079:Sexy Contribs
1074:
1073:¡Talk2Cholga!
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1051:
1042:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1019:my post above
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1001:
997:
996:
995:Sexy Contribs
990:
989:¡Talk2Cholga!
985:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
970:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
953:
952:
948:
947:
946:Sexy Contribs
941:
940:¡Talk2Cholga!
935:
929:
926:
922:
918:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
907:
906:
905:Sexy Contribs
900:
899:¡Talk2Cholga!
895:
891:
887:
886:Boston Herald
883:
881:
877:
876:
875:Sexy Contribs
870:
869:¡Talk2Cholga!
865:
863:
860:
855:
854:Strong Delete
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
831:
828:
824:
821:
820:
815:
812:
807:
803:
798:
794:
792:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
758:
754:
750:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
739:
735:
734:
733:Sexy Contribs
728:
727:¡Talk2Cholga!
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:Seattle Times
694:
690:
687:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
625:
622:
620:
617:
613:
609:
608:Hayward Fault
605:
601:
599:
595:
593:
590:
586:
582:
579:
577:
574:
569:
566:
564:
561:
558:
554:
550:
548:
544:
540:
539:
532:
529:
525:
521:
518:
517:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
498:
495:
492:
488:
485:
480:
476:
472:
468:
461:
458:
456:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
437:
430:
427:
422:
417:
416:WP:NOTABILITY
413:
412:
411:
407:
406:
405:Sexy Contribs
400:
399:¡Talk2Cholga!
395:
391:
390:WP:Notability
387:
386:
385:
384:
381:
378:
374:
373:User:R. fiend
370:
366:
362:
358:
355:
353:
350:
348:
345:
341:
337:
332:
329:
328:
323:
319:
318:
317:Sexy Contribs
312:
311:¡Talk2Cholga!
306:
305:
304:
303:
300:
297:
292:
289:
285:
282:
280:
276:
275:
273:
270:
266:
263:
259:
258:Hayward Fault
255:
254:
253:
249:
248:
247:Sexy Contribs
242:
241:¡Talk2Cholga!
237:
235:
232:
231:69.107.78.126
228:
224:
221:
217:
214:
210:
209:
206:
202:
198:
194:
189:
185:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
167:
166:
163:
159:
158:
157:Sexy Contribs
152:
151:¡Talk2Cholga!
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
66:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1328:
1325:
1302:
1269:
1226:
1196:
1180:
1168:
1147:
1140:
1126:
1115:
1092:
1078:
1053:
1033:
1029:
1022:
1017:When I made
994:
983:
963:
957:whole number
956:
945:
916:
904:
874:
853:
822:
783:
779:
748:
732:
659:Tonawanda NY
623:
612:WP:BIGNUMBER
597:
596:
580:
567:
541:
512:71.142.91.34
491:Kevin Murray
486:
465:— Preceding
459:
439:
404:
393:
356:
339:
330:
316:
290:
271:
246:
222:
172:
168:
156:
144:
132:
61:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1235:WP:NOT#NEWS
1209:WP:NOT#NEWS
845:) has made
802:Loma Prieta
717:Turkish.com
683:Akron, Ohio
655:Salinas, CA
651:Physics.org
421:WP:NOT#NEWS
388:What about
361:WP:NOT#NEWS
272:strong keep
145:strong keep
50:WP:NOT#NEWS
1240:WP:NOTNEWS
1215:problems.
1028:I changed
806:Northridge
770:mean that
365:Earthquake
1181:Transwiki
1160:calamity.
1145:Cool Hand
1070:reported.
961:Cool Hand
890:USA Today
859:Mandsford
571:articles.
553:WP:RECENT
543:Transwiki
1288:this one
843:contribs
835:Mchadsac
827:Mchadsac
671:Observor
631:LA Times
547:Wikinews
479:contribs
467:unsigned
448:Dhartung
296:Richfife
205:contribs
193:unsigned
169:Comment:
127:View log
1227:Comment
1217:John254
1101:my talk
1032:to say
917:Comment
749:Comment
701:Reuters
624:Comment
616:Dhaluza
573:JForget
557:Zzyzx11
460:Comment
347:Jaranda
331:Delete:
279:Jaranda
223:Comment
100:protect
95:history
48:, with
1303:Delete
1249:Edison
1213:WP:BLP
1189:Elkman
1141:Delete
1097:Chris!
1093:Delete
1058:Mperry
1054:Delete
925:Edison
811:Mperry
784:delete
757:Edison
667:Alaska
663:Russia
647:France
581:Delete
568:Delete
560:(Talk)
487:Delete
440:Delete
426:Edison
377:Edison
357:Delete
340:Delete
336:WP:SIG
262:Mperry
213:Mperry
197:Cholga
104:delete
64:Kurykh
58:WP:BLP
46:delete
520:WP:OR
508:WP:OR
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
1307:Whpq
1244:WP:N
1231:WP:N
1197:Keep
1149:Luke
1034:4.2+
1030:4.0+
1023:4.2+
965:Luke
921:WP:N
839:talk
823:Keep
786:. --
780:4.0+
753:WP:N
693:KFOX
679:KSBW
598:Keep
475:talk
452:Talk
344:WP:N
291:Keep
227:here
201:talk
188:here
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
54:WP:N
984:not
804:or
768:not
713:AHN
639:CNN
614:).
602:to
545:to
173:any
125:– (
1116:is
892:,
888:,
841:•
833:—
809:--
719:,
715:,
711:,
707:,
703:,
699:,
695:,
691:,
688:,
685:,
681:,
677:,
673:,
669:,
665:,
661:,
657:,
653:,
649:,
645:,
641:,
637:,
633:,
629:,
477:•
450:|
396:"?
207:).
203:•
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
56:.
1118:?
837:(
549:.
473:(
392:"
199:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.