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 merge to Uiju County. Near-unanimous consensus that this should not be a stand-alone article. Less clear between delete and merge camps. Going with merge because there's a slight numerical tilt in that direction, plus WP:PRESERVE. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Uiju earthquake

[edit]
1980 Uiju 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)

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or 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 WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

Dawnseeker2000 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on track here – this debate is about this non-notable earthquake. Dawnseeker2000 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious, you said there have been bigger earthquakes and this is not notable. I provided sources saying this is the largest and therefore notable. How I am not on track? Valoem talk contrib 04:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're on defense. Please defend this article. Dawnseeker2000 04:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This event is not notable. The mistake that was made here was in the choice of newspapers as the final word on this being the largest event in North Korea, but even if this was the largest event, it still wouldn't be notable because there is no claim of damage, injuries, or deaths —it is not meaningful that this was the "largest event in North Korea since official observation began by South Korea".

So, what's happened here is that the creator of the article hasn't adequately-defended the article. The fact that there are larger earthquakes in the North Korea region is irrelevant to this discussion. I only brought it to help them understand that this one does not stand out. I did not realize it would become the focus of their attention—so much so that they would neglect the reason why we are here. So, to state the facts again as I see it: Wikipedia does not need articles like this. The event doesn't qualify for a stand-alone article or as an entry on one of our list articles. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 16:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have brought no policy based rationale for deletion. The fact that you claim there are larger earthquakes without sources suggest possible bias. I've provide sources which suggest this is one of the few documented earthquakes in Korea. I don't see any deletion rationale looking for "injuries, deaths, or significant damage" in fact sources are provide to determine if the earthquake is run of the mill or not. This is earthquake is no less notable than 2011 Virginia earthquake which also did not have significant damage or injuries. The location and coverage is what gives both earthquakes notability. Valoem talk contrib 18:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal

Sorry Valoem, I think I may have left some things out and I also might not have been as clear as I could. I'm going to add a little detail and background and that may help a little bit. First, let me say that I enjoy writing about earthquakes and I have written about a number of events that have occurred in diverse places. If there were enough adequate and appropriate source to expand the Uiji article, I would consider doing it.

I created a table to show some of the differences between the 2011 Virginia and the Uiji earthquakes. I think this will help show that they're not on equal ground. The main thing to consider, and that I mentioned at the very top of this deletion request, is significant coverage. As it stands, the Uiji article has two newspaper sources. By themselves, I would consider these inappropriate and flimsy for an earthquake article. If there were scientific interest in this event, that would qualify it for us to consider writing an article about it, but we usually would need a handful of journal articles to create a meaningful article. It can be done with less, but it's not an ideal situation.

Comparison
1980 Uiju 2011 Virginia
Magnitude 5.3 ? 5.8 Mw
Intensity ? VII (Very strong)
Deaths ? No
Injuries ? No
Damage ? Moderate
Type ? Oblique-slip
Unusually large? No No
Mainstream coverage Yes Yes
Scientific coverage No IRIS Consortium
American Geophysical Union
Seismological Society of America
Geological Society of America
Peak ground acceleration ? .26
WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines

Dawnseeker2000 19:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing that chart I am glad to see you are interested in earthquake activity. This earthquake occurred in an area with low coverage and population, but as the article suggests should cause Korea consider for future earthquakes. Coverage received in North Korea is not going to match Continental United States, you have provided sources showing scientific interest in this earthquake and it does appear to pass WP:EARTHQUAKEGNG

I hope you reconsider. Valoem talk contrib 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the table has only solidified my position. As it stands, the event doesn't appear to be noteworthy. The article does not really say anything. I struck your comments because there is no scientific interest in the event. I placed the comments in the wrong column and they were there for about twenty minutes before I corrected it. Dawnseeker2000 21:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, those don't change a thing. Dawnseeker2000 23:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not do that either, because all we would be saying is that an earthquake happened, and that by itself is not really encyclopedic. The sources that have been presented don't say anything substantive and it seems like there's a bit of desperation to get deficient material into the encyclopedia. We should just forget about this thing and be done with it. Dawnseeker2000 21:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: If an article is present on WP, it doesn't necessarily mean that each associated WikiProject has acknowledged it as indispensable or mandatory. Most WikiProjects are loosely organized with minimal coordination and cooperation. This is probably because there's an incredible amount of work that can go into coordinating work and managing the articles. It can be overwhelming, even for a person that's willing to contribute massive amounts of time, and prioritizing activities comes into play. At the moment, my list of (earthquake) articles that I'm thinking about submitting for deletion contains 18 items. Dawnseeker2000 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the strongest earthquake South Korea has ever measured in their "homeland". It's not important to us but it's important to them thus it's a sidenote in the county article to us. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Final statemewnt

Alright, I know that there has been a good amount of discussion and participation on this, but I want to post one more time to improve on what I've been trying to say. Wikipedia is well past its infancy, and now that we have millions of articles, we need to start focusing on quality and less on quantity. WP:Earthquakes has articles on about 800 events. I have worked on many of them and it's clear to me that this one does not qualify to have its own article or an entry on a list. Some of our articles are quite polished and readable but many are not, and what we don't need at this point are more articles that can't be expanded into something that's reasonably descriptive. The sources are inadequate and there's nothing that's known about it, but if there were adequate sources and there was something to say, I would write the article myself. Dawnseeker2000 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I'd like to point out that the article for the county had the stub tag. This is a win-win scenario. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the entry.
The reason we don't need to add the EQ to that article is because it was a non-event. This is an encyclopedia and we don't mention things that aren't noteworthy. Think about it taking that course of action a little further. If we were to add a note about every non-notable earthquake, our articles would be literally littered with inconsequential tidbits like that. I don't think it's the way to go. Dawnseeker2000 16:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're not really dealing with this in terms of what's notable to Koreans but what's notable to earthquake enthusiasts like yourself. Like I wrote above: "It's the strongest earthquake South Korea has ever measured in their "homeland". It's not important to us but it's important to them thus it's a sidenote in the county article to us." --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the strongest earthquake in North Korea. And why would it be notable to North Korean's if nothing really happened? Let me answer that. It's not a notable earthquake in the North Korea area because there were no consequences. Put another way: there are notable earthquakes in the North Korea area, but this is not one of them. Dawnseeker2000 20:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List

This whole list reeks of desperation.

Dawnseeker2000 20:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newspapers aren't a good source for notability? We must edit different Wikis. And they were the first results from google using a translation I got from google translate. The word you're looking for is lazy. If you want efficiency, ask someone who knows Korean. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not when they've got it wrong. Dawnseeker2000 21:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but if what you're trying to say is that a Korean editor is to be the final word regarding the reliability of Korean sources, then I will have to disagree. The majority of sources that I've seen presented about this event are inadequate. What sort of authority on earthquakes are TV stations and newspapers? Let me tell you something. I have worked on a fair amount of earthquake articles and I've seen newspapers incorrectly report on aspects of the event. This is true even for highly respected newspapers like the Los Angeles Times. Surprised? Don't be. I mean, really, who are you going to trust on these issues? 25-year-old newspaper and TV reporters? On earthquake matters, wouldn't you more readily trust a seismoloigcal organization or a university earth sciences researcher? Dawnseeker2000 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just prove time and time again that you have no understanding of the real world notability of an event outside of how notable of an earthquake it was. Take the earthquake out. It's an event. Would you not include a notable event as a 37 word sidenote to the article of the county it happened in? My guess is you'll answer no even though you would if it weren't an earthquake. But because it's an earthquake it all changes because you're an earthquake enthusiast and there's nothing more you hate than a puny tiny earthquake getting all the glory from the massive earthquakes you love so much. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't understand my perspective. I like writing and have written articles on moderate events. They're some of my best work. Didn't you read what I wrote? I said I'd write this article myself if there were adequate sources. What you've presented are not good enough and don't really say anything anyway. The sources that should be used to state whether this was the largest event in the north Korea area say something completely different. Dawnseeker2000 21:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're avoiding the question. If the biggest snowstorm in the Korean peninsula happened in this county 36 years ago — always being referred to when there's a news article of any snowstorm in Korea — would it not merit 37 words to mention it as a sidenote in the county's article? There were no deaths reported by a notoriously stiff-lipped nation so I guess not. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not the largest

This is a 6.2 Mw strike-slip event that occurred near Pyongyang in 1952. So if we toss the claim of largest for the 1980 event, we are left with practically nothing (encyclopedia entries and articles are based on much more than that).

  • Kang, Tae-Seob; Jun, Myung-Soon (2011). Some studies on the 1952 earthquake near Pyeongyang, North Korea (PDF). The 1st Annual Meeting of the Project of Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Next Generation Map: Strategic Japanese-Chinese-Korean Cooperative Program. Harbin Institute of Technology.

Dawnseeker2000 01:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker2000, Mr. Magoo, Let's discuss it, has anyone check Korean sources? If not does anyone mind if I ping some editors with experience in Korean subject? I don't want to be accused of canvassing again. Valoem talk contrib 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the paper are from Korean institutions: Pukyong National University and the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources. Dawnseeker2000 20:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am speaking about source written in the Korean language regarding this. I am not Korean so I would not know where to begin a search. Do you mind if I ping in Korean editors? Valoem talk contrib 20:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can send a neutral invitation to anyone, but it is hard to see how a temblor that causes no property damage, no deaths and no injuries is worthy of a freestanding encyclopedia article. It is a triviality unworthy of further discussion, in my opinion. Massive numbers of such minor non-notable earthquakes take place all over the planet all the time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about what, specifically? I think that I've shown that there's nothing known about it. Dawnseeker2000 16:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you imagine if we applied the "merge to the locale" response to this kind of problem to all the non-notable earthquakes articles that are created? We'd have a never-ending stream of useless entries that would be added to our city, county, and country articles. How does that approach align with constructing a high quality encyclopedia? My understanding of this project is that we're writing about notable topics that are educational, informative, and interesting. This event is none of those things. Dawnseeker2000 01:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly passes GNG given the sources provided and also earthquake GNG per:

User:Cullen328 The 1952 earthquake occurred before official monitoring began in 1978 so this is officially the largest. Valoem talk contrib 15:55, 21 February 2016 (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.
More