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.
I don't think Wikipedia needs an article for every earthquake. My rationale behind this is WP:NOTNEWS. Mikemoral♪♫ 05:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the previous nom, it does fail to look at the article's subject in a historical manner. It has been about a month an no editing activity in the sense of improving since then. To be honest, this reads as a news article like one would find in Wikinews or the New York Times and it is so. --Mikemoral♪♫ 05:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything gets reported in the news when it happens. This was, from a historical perspective, a non-event, and WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies. Please read Richter_scale#Richter_magnitudes for some perspective. An earthquake between 3.0-3.9 magnitude happens something on the order of 49,000 per year. The are strong enough to be felt, but "rarely cause damage". Something which happens over 100 times per day, and leaves no lasting effects seems to be patently non-notable, despite a few newstories the day after it happened. --Jayron32 05:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Merge to Sandwich Fault Zone for same reasons listed above, and rationales below. --Jayron32 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone. Someone might search for it as Illinois quake, but its notability is in the new information it provides about the fault, not in the quake itself. Jminthorne (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-event. We cannot create an article everytime there is a minor earthquake somewhere on the planet!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted keep in the first one, but with the benefit of further time to think about it, I'm going to say delete, redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone, as Jminthorne suggested. Jayron32 also makes a good point with the number of such earthquakes that happen per year. Cheers, C628 (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect per above. Although the consensus was to keep this news story soon after it happened, this wouldn't be on here if it had been a 3.8 quake anywhere outside the U.S.A., or had it happened in a year that didn't begin with a "2". Illinois doesn't have quakes very often, sure, but write an article about Illinois quakes in general ("Sandwich Fault Zone"? No, I don't want to know why), not about an individual incident that no longer makes any news. If you've ever heard the windows shake because a helicopter was flying nearby, that's about the effect of a 3.8 tremor. Not notable in March, not notable now. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another not very sever earthquake article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Example 700, it seems, of how some people are too quick to edit Wikipedia when the news breaks. In all seriousness, this is a case of NOTNEWS, and I agree with the redirect proposal. HonouraryMix (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - otherwise non-notable earthquake, but users looking for info on it would certainly find the Sandwich Fault Zone quite useful (if expanded).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would we all agree to move the information presented in the article and more the relevent information to the fault article? --Mikemoral♪♫ 19:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge if a suitable place exists. I blogged about earthquake AfDs recently, there is little rhyme or reason to what is kept and what is deleted.[1]. As long as content is verifiable, no need to delete.--Milowent (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - verifiability is not a sufficient condition for notability. While a 3.9 earthquake may be exceptional in this location, it's not otherwise noteworthy and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. However, the fault zone itself appears notable, and mention of important seismic events relative to that location can be put in that article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 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.
