472:
anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the
Knowledge passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." There are two further conditions. If there is any problem with them, it can be solved by editing. There is no violation of this policy in this article.
274:
problem is geological naming (i.e. there is no evidence to call them "aftershocks") the simple solution is to remove the word "aftershocks." And please note that palpable earthquakes occurring shortly after a deadly quake receive nationwide coverage in Japan, independent of
Knowledge. So in answer to the concern you expressed above, they did receive independent coverage.
539:, which would make sense only if we had sources to confirm that these tremors were actually related to the main quake. As it stands, this is just an arbitrarily-selected list of about 20-30 tremors that occurred during an arbitrarily-chosen period of time in the vicinity of the epicentre of the main quake. –
471:
the policy outright. Here is a direct quote from the policy: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in
Knowledge... ." The USGS is, of course, a reliable source. The statement continues, "... , but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason,
144:
A quake occurring afterward around the focus of the major quake is not always the aftershock. Another quake can occur by a different cause and a different mechanism, which is not to be counted as an aftershock. The USGS sources for this article show data on the quakes which occurred afterward; but
273:
There is no need for geologic proof that they are related. Rather, they are very closely related in the public mind because they occurred so soon after a lethal earthquake. They should be included in
Knowledge not for (or not only for) geologic information, but for their effect on society. If the
490:
notes: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by
Knowledge editors." The claim that the earthquakes mentioned in this list are aftershocks is just such an
399:
major examples with the original article; the aftershocks are not notable on their own and as noted above if they aren't all connected to the original quake, then those chaff should be removed. In response to
Editorofthewiki, the fact a link is no longer working is an invalid argument to make
159:
of narrow topics. The list is coherent only if these are called "aftershocks". Merging is also problematic: if we can't legitimately call the listed earthquakes "aftershocks" of the 2008 Iwate earthquake, then there is no reason for these earthquakes to be mentioned in the main article.
48:(default keep). But note that keeping in this format under this title is probably not a good idea, for the otherwise valid concerns expressed here. However these concerns are editorial, and can be addressed by bold editors without the need for AfD. As for
334:; however, there is a difference between discussing the topic of "tremors after the June 14" in a section of the article and displaying an arbitrarily-selected list of about 20-30 tremors that occurred during an arbitrarily-chosen period of time.
516:
Earthquakes are just (slow) weather in the semisolid part of the planet. We don't have articles on weather events, even if they get reported on more than these aftershocks. Major storms and major earthquakes get articles. Synthesis should not.
299:
Agreed: They are commonplace, as is media coverage. People (society) pay close attention to palpable earthquakes. News programs interview people. Knowledge takes media coverage as a clue that a topic merits an article.
262:. Merging shouldn't occur until that is proven, and probably shouldn't occur even then: according to the main article, over 400 tremors were recorded near Honshū in the seven days after the June 14 earthquake. –
531:"Solved by editing"? How? The only way to "solve by editing" is either to rename the article to "List of earthquakes in Honshū, Japan (June 13 – June 18, 2008)", which would go against the principle that
100:
95:
155:
Finding another title is problematic due to the fact that a "List of earthquakes in Honshū, Japan (June 13 – June 18, 2008)" (the only other possibly valid title) would violate the provision that
104:
87:
336:
Minor traffic incidents receive media coverage and news programs interview people about them, but you wouldn't see a "List of traffic incidents in Honshū from June 13 – June 18, 2008". –
404:
is a fact of life. Therefore if the link worked at the time the article was created, then it's valid, at least until
Knowledge policy is changed to ban the use of online sources.
360:
per reasoning given above. This should probably have been done as a merge discussion rather than a delete discussion, especially given the response mentioned by the nominator. ···
133:
224:
Why? If the earthquakes had caused substantial additional damage/casualties or received independent coverage, I could understand, but that is not the case here. –
91:
184:
83:
75:
52:
posed in the final comment on this discussion, there are other alternatives, such as a section called "Smaller earthquakes afterward" or whatnot.
545:
526:
511:
497:
481:
459:
430:
413:
391:
374:
I cannot see how this can be merged. The USGS link is broken, and thus the article is unsourced. In a list, this cannot be tolerated. --I'm an
366:
342:
309:
294:
283:
268:
253:
230:
219:
210:
A list of earthquakes occurring after and around the focus of a major earthquake is worth keeping even if the earthquakes are not aftershocks.
199:
173:
69:
377:
536:
331:
259:
167:
was notified four weeks ago. The former request went unanswered and the latter received a response noting that the USGS links are broken. –
288:
What "effect on society"? Tremors after a major earthquake are commonplace, especially in a geologically-active place such as Japan. –
164:
17:
317:: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient
145:
there is no verification that those were scientifically indentified as the aftershocks of the 2008 Iwate earthquake.
568:
383:
36:
151:
If you don't like calling them "aftershocks," why not find another title for the article. Or merge as suggested.
567:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
522:
455:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
426:
241:
330:
I agree with you that media coverage of tremors after the June 14 quake should be noted in the article
380:
318:
518:
451:
249:
409:
321:. Moreover, once we stop calling these "aftershocks", this list becomes a perfect example of an
258:
There is no evidence given in the article that these earthquakes are in any way related to the
541:
493:
422:
338:
290:
264:
226:
169:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
65:
163:
A request for clarification and/or verification was made on the talk page 10 weeks ago and
61:
487:
447:
439:
386:
245:
532:
507:
477:
405:
361:
325:
322:
314:
305:
279:
215:
195:
156:
49:
121:
443:
54:
503:
473:
401:
301:
275:
211:
191:
533:
Knowledge is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed
561:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
400:
regarding sourcing since the nature of the
Internet is that
128:
117:
113:
109:
502:
And can be solved by editing. No need for deletion.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
571:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
185:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
140:Per a comment on the article's talk page:
84:List of 2008 Iwate earthquake aftershocks
76:List of 2008 Iwate earthquake aftershocks
183:: This debate has been included in the
149:PROD was contested with the comment:
7:
537:2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake
332:2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake
260:2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake
24:
442:, and allow the article to pass
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
315:Knowledge is not a news source
1:
546:21:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
527:21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
512:21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
498:16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
482:10:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
460:09:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
431:08:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
70:00:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
157:Knowledge is not a directory
414:13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
392:21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
367:04:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
343:14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
310:06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
295:04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
284:03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
269:03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
254:03:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
231:03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
220:02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
200:03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
174:02:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
588:
564:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
491:"interpretive claim". –
438:. The USGS reports are
165:WikiProject Earthquakes
450:, a policy, outright.
147:
242:2008 Iwate earthquake
142:
44:The result was
535:, or to merge to
202:
188:
68:
579:
566:
364:
189:
179:
131:
125:
107:
60:
57:
34:
587:
586:
582:
581:
580:
578:
577:
576:
575:
569:deletion review
562:
446:, but it fails
440:primary sources
362:
328:of information.
127:
98:
82:
79:
55:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
585:
583:
574:
573:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
529:
519:Phlegm Rooster
452:Phlegm Rooster
433:
416:
394:
369:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
335:
329:
323:indiscriminate
235:
234:
233:
204:
203:
138:
137:
78:
73:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
584:
572:
570:
565:
559:
558:
547:
544:
543:
538:
534:
530:
528:
524:
520:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
496:
495:
489:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
470:
466:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
398:
395:
393:
390:
389:
388:
385:
382:
379:
373:
370:
368:
365:
359:
356:
344:
341:
340:
333:
327:
324:
320:
316:
313:
312:
311:
307:
303:
298:
297:
296:
293:
292:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
272:
271:
270:
267:
266:
261:
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
232:
229:
228:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
186:
182:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
171:
166:
161:
158:
153:
152:
146:
141:
135:
130:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
67:
63:
59:
58:
51:
50:false dilemma
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
563:
560:
542:Black Falcon
540:
494:Black Falcon
492:
468:
464:
435:
423:WikiScrubber
418:
396:
376:
375:
371:
357:
339:Black Falcon
337:
291:Black Falcon
289:
265:Black Falcon
263:
237:
227:Black Falcon
225:
207:
180:
170:Black Falcon
168:
162:
154:
150:
148:
143:
139:
53:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
421:per above.
319:notability
62:delusional
486:Actually
326:directory
246:Bvlax2005
406:23skidoo
402:link rot
134:View log
66:kangaroo
488:WP:PSTS
465:Comment
448:WP:PSTS
101:protect
96:history
469:passes
436:Delete
378:Editor
372:Delete
129:delete
105:delete
419:Merge
397:Merge
358:Merge
240:with
238:Merge
132:) – (
122:views
114:watch
110:links
56:Jerry
16:<
523:talk
508:talk
478:talk
456:talk
444:WP:V
427:talk
410:talk
387:wiki
306:talk
280:talk
250:talk
216:talk
208:Keep
196:talk
181:Note
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
504:Fg2
474:Fg2
467:It
384:the
363:日本穣
302:Fg2
276:Fg2
212:Fg2
192:Fg2
187:.
525:)
510:)
480:)
458:)
429:)
412:)
381:of
308:)
282:)
252:)
244:.
218:)
198:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
64:¤
521:(
506:(
476:(
454:(
425:(
408:(
304:(
278:(
248:(
214:(
194:(
190:—
136:)
126:(
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.