Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 Iwate earthquake aftershocks
- 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 (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 false dilemma posed in the final comment on this discussion, there are other alternatives, such as a section called "Smaller earthquakes afterward" or whatnot. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of 2008 Iwate earthquake aftershocks
- List of 2008 Iwate earthquake aftershocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Per a comment on the article's talk page:
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 there is no verification that those were scientifically indentified as the aftershocks of the 2008 Iwate earthquake.
PROD was contested with the comment: If you don't like calling them "aftershocks," why not find another title for the article. Or merge as suggested.
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 Wikipedia is not a directory 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.
A request for clarification and/or verification was made on the talk page 10 weeks ago and WikiProject Earthquakes was notified four weeks ago. The former request went unanswered and the latter received a response noting that the USGS links are broken. –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A list of earthquakes occurring after and around the focus of a major earthquake is worth keeping even if the earthquakes are not aftershocks. Fg2 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? If the earthquakes had caused substantial additional damage/casualties or received independent coverage, I could understand, but that is not the case here. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with 2008 Iwate earthquake. Bvlax2005 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence given in the article that these earthquakes are in any way related to the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake. 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia not for (or not only for) geologic information, but for their effect on society. If the 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 Wikipedia. So in answer to the concern you expressed above, they did receive independent coverage. Fg2 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What "effect on society"? Tremors after a major earthquake are commonplace, especially in a geologically-active place such as Japan. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed: They are commonplace, as is media coverage. People (society) pay close attention to palpable earthquakes. News programs interview people. Wikipedia takes media coverage as a clue that a topic merits an article. Fg2 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. Moreover, once we stop calling these "aftershocks", this list becomes a perfect example of an indiscriminate directory of information.
I agree with you that media coverage of tremors after the June 14 quake should be noted in the article 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake; 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.
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". –Black Falcon (Talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. Moreover, once we stop calling these "aftershocks", this list becomes a perfect example of an indiscriminate directory of information.
- Agreed: They are commonplace, as is media coverage. People (society) pay close attention to palpable earthquakes. News programs interview people. Wikipedia takes media coverage as a clue that a topic merits an article. Fg2 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What "effect on society"? Tremors after a major earthquake are commonplace, especially in a geologically-active place such as Japan. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia not for (or not only for) geologic information, but for their effect on society. If the 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 Wikipedia. So in answer to the concern you expressed above, they did receive independent coverage. Fg2 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence given in the article that these earthquakes are in any way related to the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake. 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 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 Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge 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 regarding sourcing since the nature of the Internet is that link rot is a fact of life. Therefore if the link worked at the time the article was created, then it's valid, at least until Wikipedia policy is changed to ban the use of online sources. 23skidoo (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The USGS reports are primary sources, and allow the article to pass WP:V, but it fails WP:PSTS, a policy, outright. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It passes 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 Wikipedia... ." 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, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia 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. Fg2 (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually WP:PSTS 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 Wikipedia editors." The claim that the earthquakes mentioned in this list are aftershocks is just such an "interpretive claim". –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And can be solved by editing. No need for deletion. Fg2 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "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 Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, or to merge to 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake, 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And can be solved by editing. No need for deletion. Fg2 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually WP:PSTS 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 Wikipedia editors." The claim that the earthquakes mentioned in this list are aftershocks is just such an "interpretive claim". –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It passes 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 Wikipedia... ." 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, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia 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. Fg2 (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2008 (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.