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 KEEP Substantial consensus for notability and keep Mike Cline (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Illinois earthquake[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion by an IP who can't create AFD pages. I have no comment on the nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one killed or even hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT#NEWS.

There are however many articles like this on wikipedia, this one is important, in that it was an earthquake in a place where there is not earthquakes, it is notable in that fact Skuzbucket (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it does fulfill the requirements outlined by Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Notability. First, the earthquake "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" such as the New York Times (cited in the article), the Christian Science Monitor^[1], and the Wall Street Journal^[2] to name just a few. Second, any earthquake in Illinois is rare, especially one that generates national news coverage. This particular earthquake is notable scientifically because its origins are not understood well. —Diiscool (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Diiscool. Lost on Belmont (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Gaylord, Chris (February 10, 2010). "Illinois earthquake: How bad is a 3.8 magnitude?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved February 27, 2010. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Barrett, Joe (February 10, 2010). "Minor Earthquake Strikes Near Chicago". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 27, 2010. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @960 · 22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @960 · 22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or make a general article on northern Illinois earthquakes, and merge that information there. The earthquake was pretty weak, but it's still interesting to many people because of where it took place. It would be a shame to get rid of this material entirely. Zagalejo^^^ 07:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily, since I have heard of this quake in the news, but an article on earthquakes in Illinois seems to be be needed, which this one can then be merged into along with similar articles such as the LaSalle County quake several years ago.

S Martin (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite clearly a notable event with plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets the notability requirements. Just because no one died doesn't mean it's not significant, and I think Diiscool puts it perfectly. C628 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diiscool makes some sensible arguments about a quake in the Chicago area being an unusual event (Southern Illinois has had its share because it's close to the New Madrid fault). However, it falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. Sure, it made the news the day it happened, but two weeks later, is anyone mentioning it? We get plenty of articles entitled "2010 _____________" (tremor, plane making an unscheduled landing, event where more than one person was shot, man bites dog) simply because it's on CNN or Fox that day. Usually, there's a grace period of a week or two before a nomination is made, simply because some news events do turn out to get covered days and weeks later. This doesn't appear to be one of those events. I agree with Zag that a general article would be preferable to this type of "breaking news" piece. Mandsford (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete depressing america-centrism. Millions of such shakings occur every year.--DAI (Δ) 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable due to rarity of event, further north than usual area for earthquakes to strike Midwest. --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and sourced. Hooper (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass WP:NOTNEWS Power.corrupts (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Of course it has sources, it just isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's notable due to the fact that it was a rare event, in an area (Northern Illinois) where earthquakes occur 2-3 times a century. Secondly, why not keep a scientific article contributing to the study of earthquakes on Wikipedia? I wish that there would be more emphasis on science in Wikipedia, it's pretty sad that Category:WikiProject Earthquakes articles has only 796 articles, and on the other hand, Category:WikiProject Football articles has 109,249 articles. Is it really possible that all 109,249 association football articles are noteworthy?? Why the emphasis on sports and not seismology?? What is wrong with having one or two more earthquake articles?? --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor quake of no significance. Earthquakes like this are not so rare in northern Illinois. Much bigger quakes like the 1909 Jun 26 14:42 5.1M Intensity VII in Aurora and the 1972 Sep 15 05:22 4.0M Intensity VI northern Illinois, were more substantial and only occur a couple of times a century in northern Illinois. --Bejnar (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and the two quakes mentioned above need articles too, as they don't have any right now, even though they're notable. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the intrigue caused by the unusual location of the quake, which caused notable coverage by WP:RSs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a 3.8Mw on the New Madrid Fault would not be notable, this one is scientifically significant because they have not yet been able to associate it with a known fault. Wine Guy~Talk 01:52, 7 March 2010 (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.