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. Newsflash: this close shouldn't shake or rattle any of the participants. Okay, bad puns aside. There is no consensus to deletion here. Arguments in favour of keeping are generally surrounded on whether our general notability guideline has been met, which it is (though this closer notes the presence of reference bombing and editors may want to consider reducing the number of duplicative references). Note, though, that meeting GNG does not confer standalone notability; alternatives, such as merging with related earthquake-relate event articles or to list articles, can occur in the normal course of merger deliberations on one or more talk pages. Editor Ultimograph5 notes (although it should be noted this is not a vote and thus the editor's "strong keep" does not necessarily have anymore value than another "keep" vote) that earthquakes of this magnitude are rare along this fault line (although it's not immediately clear to this closing editor whether or not that's the Richter scale). Some of the few editors, such as Mikenorton, making deletion arguments even note this article has encyclopedic value, albeit through a merger into List of earthquakes in 2020, which seems prudent. This even has concurrence with Slgrandson, who, despite this notionally not being a vote, favours "slight keep," perhaps makes one of the more stronger arguments here for a merger. Nevertheless, that argument did not find much take up here in this discussion. That's not to say that a merger is, by any stretch, off the table since (a) that's outside of the scope of this close and (b) consensus can change at any time, including later this evening. Editors are encouraged to consider various alternatives, at the talk page, which could renaming (this article, as titled, would imply this is the only earthquake that will occur in 2020) or merging into one or more articles via the talk page, and pay particular attention to the guidelines specified at WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Caribbean earthquake[edit]

2020 Caribbean 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)

There has been very very minimal apparent damage and no casualties (even injuries) from this earthquake, and its strength itself (not that strong on a global scale, merely slightly unusual for this region) does not alone make it a notable event. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. Nearly every other shallow earthquake of at least magnitude 7.7 earthquake since 2010 at least has had an article on it, including those with no casualties. The only shallow magnitude 7.7+ earthquakes without articles were the 7.7 2013 Coronation Island earthquake in Antarctica and the 7.7 2017 Kamchatka earthquake. Both of these took place in extremely sparsely populated regions, in areas where large earthquakes are already frequent. An earthquake of similar magnitude in the middle of the Caribbean, a densely populated region where massive earthquakes are relatively infrequent, definitely warrants an article. Furthermore, we don't even know for certain the extent of the damages or injuries yet. Remember that in the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes, it took 5 days after their taking place for a casualty to be publicly announced, even in a well-covered and investigated area. For somewhere like Cuba or Jamaica? If there are casualties, I'm not at all surprised they haven't been reported yet. Either way, this remains the strongest earthquake on the entire planet in the last 8 months, the strongest shallow-focus earthquake on the entire planet in the last 2 years, and the most significant earthquake in the entire Caribbean (and by extension the entire Caribbean Plate outside of the Cocos Plate subduction zone) in over 70 years. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at all shallow (depth<50km) M≥7.7 earthquakes going back to 2000, there are 7 that don't have articles. In all cases these earthquakes happened in remote locations having no significant or, more importantly, lasting impact on any populated areas. The Caribbean earthquake is in my view exactly like those. Mikenorton (talk)

Right, and it may be helpful to look at another deletion discussion for a similar event that happened in 2004. Our article was 2004 Cayman Islands earthquake and it occurred 300 kilometers to the ESE along the plate boundary. That shock was also a strike slip earthquake and had an identical maximum intensity of VI (Strong). These two are going to be similar in yet another way: no enduring notability. There's no reason to write about these types of events because there's nothing to discuss. Dawnseeker2000 23:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All that needs saying about this earthquake can be included in its entry in the list of earthquakes in 2020. As to the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes, the sources show that significant damage was reported (including collapsed buildings) within 24 hours of the first event, whereas no such reports have appeared for the Caribbean earthquake. What's important is "enduring notability" (see WP:EVENT) - the news stories covering this earthquake have pretty much stopped completely already. Mikenorton (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Per WP:NOTNEWS: "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." A 7.7 earthquake in the Caribbean is not a routine event, and just because there haven't been any reported deaths yet, doesn't mean it's not worth an article. I'm not going to deny the article has some issues, but these can be fixed. For example, it doesn't yet mention that the ODPEM of Jamaica has reported structural damage in at least two parishes, including a school closure due to the buildings being left structurally unsound. TheRMSTitanic (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Most powerful earthquake on this fault line since 1948; above magnitude 7.5; plus every other magnitude 7+ earthquake has an article. The size and rarity of it makes it article-worthy. Ultimograph5 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just analysed all the earthquakes in our list articles going back to 2000. Of all the earthquakes with M≥7, 101 have articles and 172 don't. Nothing will be lost if this is just kept as an entry in the list of earthquakes in 2020. Mikenorton (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – It's an interesting subject, but there are plenty of earthquakes over M7.0 every year. Using trivia as a rationale for keeping this article does not seem just. Had there been more impacts, I might be inclined to change my view, but I hardly imagine this will be an earthquake many people will be mentioning much in the future considering its limited effects. Master of Time (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It's particularly notable since a quake this size is rarely experienced at this region. Though yes, the damage was very minimal and casualties were null, it is worth noting that the quake too, generated a sensational response amongst the general public and generated a buzz over the media. The massive, widespread nature of reactions it produced make the quake worth covering. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Slight keep per arguments above; otherwise, merge into List of earthquakes in 2020. (On a related note: Beats me why the more widely reported 2019–2020 Puerto Rico earthquakes don't have an article yet.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy link - 2020 Puerto Rico earthquakes - maybe a rename would be a good idea. Mikenorton (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes the GNG, not some fanciful statistical analysis about articles that people created or didn't create (WP:Not complete) based on the magnitude of the earthquake. Such a discussion might have relevance at In the news/Candidates, but here it just looks like WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AGF, Buttons0603 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Almost every argument in favour or against above-stated by other users have been well-put. I would be inclined to Delete due to it's relevance [lack of it comparing with other quakes without articles] or Slight Keep. After thinking about it for some minutes while re-reading the arguments above that were written above, I have to choose Keep due to totally agreeing with the logically correct reasoning of Azurevanilla ash. What I believe that there is lacking quite a bit actually, on the article is: more sources but more than some more sources, way more content and videos/photos of said earthquake. Adding more content can be corrected I argue and thus confirm it's relevance. Have a nice day everyone! :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. While we have often required deaths for airplane crashes to be notable, unless I missed something, we have not required confirmed deaths for earthquakes. This is not run of the mill: it's one of the few earthquakes felt in Florida in my lifetime. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you could feel it does not make it notable. Earthquakes where I live are rare, like Florida, but happen occasionally, also like Florida, and the only one that has an article in my lifetime is one which actually caused notable damage. As far as I can see, this earthquake did not. Buttons0603 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No encyclopedic value. If an event has no real effect on people, places, and things we don't need to write about it. Dawnseeker2000 08:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a record event for the Caribbean, in which earthquakes aren´t common. If this earthquake had occurred in a remote area prone to earthquakes, then it would be logical to delete the article. However, it didn´t so we shouldn´t. Also, there is still more information to be learned about what happened. RandomPerson144 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The significance of geological and environmental phenomena is not determined by casualties or property damage. The event passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. The votes to delete seem to be based more on individual perception of importance than in an assessment of whether or not the page meets Wikipedia's criteria. There are certainly more interesting topics than this which should not have pages, and more boring topics than this which should.IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although there is plenty of weight and sense in the delete rationale, the article comfortably meets our GNG guidelines, making other concerns less important. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 21:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Meeting GNG is necessary and I wouldn't dispute that the article can, in those terms, be presumed to be suitable to have an article, but that is not a guarantee that it should have one. As an event it should also meet the WP:EVENT guideline, such as the need for the event to have either "enduring historical significance" or "have a significant lasting effect", and that the coverage should be continuing as "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an exncyclopedia article." My "delete" vote is based on that guideline. Mikenorton (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2020 (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.