- 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 delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Lucia Earthquake 2011
[edit]- Saint Lucia Earthquake 2011 (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)
Insignificant event & does not meet our suggested minimum notability guidelines. Just not much to say about this one. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response There doesn't appear to be any effects of this moderate shock. No one was injured and no damage was reported. There are large and damaging earthquakes that affect the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the Caribbean Plate, but this small shock is not one of them. We do have articles on some of those events, like the 2007 Martinique, 1918 San Fermin, and the 2010 Haiti earthquakes. Those are necessary articles, but this one just doesn't merit a stand alone article because it lacks encyclopedic value. It might be worth mentioning in another article for a nearby earthquake if a journal article mentions it, but it seems there isn't anything more to be said about it because I can't find any more reliable sources for it. This exists, but it only underscores the lack of notability about the shock. This insurance-based report (it is not a scientific article) states intensities of II–IV were reported. Pretty light.
- The eastern Caribbean has seen quite a bit of small to moderate events like this one in the last five hundred years, as indicated by this 1964 report from the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, which describes similar small shocks of up to intensity V that do little to no damage, but there are no scientific articles that are dedicated to this event. We are still needing to write articles on some of the earthquakes that have occurred in this region. The 1690 Antigua earthquake (Intensity IX) and the December 4, 1954 Trinidad earthquake (Intensity VIII) are both examples of this.
- Our notability guidelines are not the final word of course, but I think they do a reasonable job at weeding out the unnecessary items, and if we go point by point for this event, we have the following:
- Magnitude 7 or greater: No
- Intensity of VII or greater: No
- Deaths: No
- Discussed in scientific papers: No
- Unusually large event in area of low seismicity: No. In fact just the opposite. It's a small event in a tectonically active area that generates very large events.
- Mentioned in mainstream media: Yes, as a news item
- Dawnseeker2000 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I tried to clean up the article, but it fails WP:EVENT. No injuries, no damage and no evidence of lasting effect. The article's only claim to notability is not supported by reliable sources. RS coverage appears to be limited to the news cycle within the region. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2014 (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.