Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Chino Hills earthquake: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:27, 30 July 2008

2008 Chino Hills earthquake

There is nothing special about this earthqauake at all. No-one died, little damage, and it isn't a record or unprecedented for SoCal, unlike the Illinois or Market Rasen earthquakes. In short, delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because people didn't die, doesn't make the article any less significant.Gunnerdevil4 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I say let it play out a bit first. -- Phoenix2 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict Delete - I was planning on nomming but never got around to it. Sure, CNN and others are totally hyping this, but nothing serious has happened. There's nothing notable about it except the sort-of high magnitude number - C L — 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, The earthquake was really just a few minutes ago. You people need to learn to edit correctly. There's nothing special about a snow storm that hit Ohio in 2006 or 2007 and one in 2008 but yet, there's an article. Sorry for being mean. Haha. But yeah, let is play a bit first. Keep as a stub at least.
Keep - Give it some time, not all the details are quite clear yet, let's just hold off for a while, besides what if there's a powerful aftershock?
- See WP:CRYSTAL. Until said powerful aftershock happens, it still isn't notable. C L — 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, give it some time to play out. BKMCAE (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. This earthquake was one of the first major earthquakes Los Angeles has had in a while. I say keep for the time being until we get a clear estimate of how much damage was caused. Also, people might want to come to this article for more information on what's been going on. (Keep in mind that the Whittier Narrows quake in 1987, a 5.9, was the last big shake Southern California had; 5.4 is still pretty big, albeit small compared to the one in 1987.) Any Wikipedians from SoCal feel it? Iamwisesun (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in reliable source that are independent of the subject. Presumed notability. Besides, WP:NOT#NEWS is an assertion, not a deletion criterion. --Elliskev 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is significant coverage and it meets the standards of Wikipedia. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.62.153 (talk)
Comment - I've just had a look through the California earthquakes category. The weakest one apart from this is about 20 times stronger. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably keep it for now because (a) we don't have too much data on its significance, (b) it's Los Angeles, a city which everyone expects to eventually get "the big one", and (c) every news reporter in the country is on edge because they want to be the first in to "ground zero" to report on it. I suspect the article will ultimately be deleted in a few days once this dies down and reporters realize that they're not getting the Pulitzer Prize,... Dr. Cash (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per NOT#NEWS. Elliskev, the nominator didn't say anything of notability — he nominated based on the "assertion" that this is news blow up, which I'll agree with. A 5.2 earthquake in LA is nothing new for LA. If it were in Beijing, or in another high-risk society (low building standards, many people, etc), then I think it might be worth keeping. But as it is? --Izno (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? So is it notable, or not? I don't understand the reason for the nomination, I guess. --Elliskev 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Sceptre. As of now, this might be just another earthquake, with no resulting damage to people or property. If there is any major developments in the future that makes this notable we can always recreate or undelete. But as of now, this isn't notable as I see it per WP:NOTNEWS. It might become notable in the future if anything else should happen, but keeping for this reason would come under WP:CRYSTAL. Bjelleklang - talk 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay. Just sayin'. --Elliskev 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still.. If this quake had no consequences other than making a few headlines in the papers, I see no reason for this to be kept. Wikinews would be a better place for this for now. Bjelleklang - talk 21:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Spend your energy doing something useful on Wikipedia, instead of trying to delete articles that will only be re-created. It's a notable event. It's already gotten international attention [1], and there's no harm in creating an article on Wikipedia (which is not paper), where people come for information as it develops, whether you like that or not. Moncrief (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a few days in case there are ramifications or as-yet-unappreciated notability, then take a view on its long-term value. Barnabypage (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per ITN section, and not all articles have dead people; earthquakes included. This is under-construction, since the quake only happened 25 minutes ago. It requires time to develop and match Wikipedia's policies. If its still in such a horrible state after a few days, then re-request deletion. --haha169 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until something happens to make this more than just a news story. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An earthquake never becomes more than a news story. GA article, 2008 Sichuan earthquake, cites news journals and media outlets primarily. These earthquakes only make it to news stories until years later when an educational synthesis can be published. If we follow your suggestion, we should go and delete all the earthquake articles, and by extension to related topics, half the articles on Wikipedia! --haha169 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bad, bad, bad. bad example to use to support your point. About 70,000 people DIED in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, making it a major international disaster. There aren't even reports of serious injury (per CNN's current coverage) from today's quake. Sichuan is notable on the basis of its casualties alone. 23skidoo (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strong Keep This was heavy shaker, I thought my house was going to come off its foundation. It should be further noted that this quake was weird in a sense. Quakes are either a Jolt, or a roller. This was both, it started with a slight rolling sensation, then the ground jolted, followed by 20 more seconds of rolling. It lasted about 45 seconds in Mission Viejo, CA--Subman758 (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now reports from the FAA about minor Runway damage at three local airports, LAX, John Wayne Airport, & Ontario Airport.--Subman758 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- keep, there has been several minor damages along with broken water lines and the las vegas city hall had some violent shakes
Keep, need to let this play out a bit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.225.249 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above statements of keeps.. Los Angeles is not a small place.. An earthquake in a place like LA with a magnitude of 5.4 lasting about 1 minute should be kept for awhile.. even if it means until there is wikipedia. --Axxand (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -- and for the very practical reason that people will continue to try to write about it for a while -- but in a week or two or three it will very likely prove to be a non-event, and deletable. FWIW, where I am (Santa Barbara) it was the strongest shaker since the Northridge quake in 1994, and was rather a spectacular rolling event. Antandrus (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but voting more than once doesn't help our cause. If you have new thoughts, put them under your initial vote, please. Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct my bad, I relocated the info.--Subman758 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ Los Angeles is no more important than Iran or the Philippines... IMO --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

censorship attempted at my vote :( I may support now to merge with Chino Hills--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strong Keep This is notable, wikipedia is a place for information and earthquakes wherever should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapletip (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep maintaining information like this is one of the reasons Wikipedia exists! What a terrific resource for research!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—For me, the article itself gives the strongest reason for deletion... The region suffered only minor damage. While it may have gained instant notoriety, I don't think that's the same as encyclopedic notability. What would EB do? Livitup (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't that gives a strong reason to be kept.. The region suffered only minor damage with a 5.4 frequency which occurs only every 10 years with 5.5 is the maximum and 5.6 could only occur every 100 years.. think about that. isn't it amazing that LA only suffered minor damage with a 5.4 frequency.. i conclude that should be kept.--Axxand (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Definitely notable, plenty of reliable citations that verify claims... Plus, I live in Southern California and I felt the damn thing! --Happyme22 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable. Size is notable, not necessarily damage. The only reason there wasn't more damage was because it happened in an area with newer infrastructure...whereas quakes in LA proper are devastating because they affect hundred year old buildings. Rorry1 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this now. The overwhelming consensus is to keep the article. Its silly to debate this further. Rorry1 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, patience is the way to go. Some admin will come by and close it in due time. You don't have to worry about the article being deleted. --haha169 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to Wikinews. It's not a major earthquake by any objective definition, end of story. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guideline somewhere that defines the threshold? --Elliskev 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's little point casting a vote since it's a SNOW situation, but for my part I don't feel this is another Northridge. Earthquakes, even serious ones, are a dime a dozen in LA and southern California and I'm not seeing indication that this is another Northridge. I fully expect this to be renominated within the week and unless something really serious transpires as a result of the shaker today, I'll probably break my own rule and support the renonomination. I normally do not support quick renominations after keep decisions, but I really don't see anything to make this notable in the long term based upon current coverage. If it was another Northridge, we'd have heard by now. 23skidoo (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your statement "Earthquakes, even serious ones, [emphasis mine] are a dime a dozen in LA and southern California" is wildly hyperbolic, even in the context of the minimal hyperbole I imagine you intended. I'm not saying this is another Northridge, of course it isn't, but it is the strongest earthquake to directly affect the urbanized Los Angeles area since Northridge, 14 years ago. (AP: "The strongest earthquake to strike a populated area of Southern California in more than a decade"[2]) Why shouldn't we create a viable article about this event, which did cause some damage? How is Wikipedia weakened by having such an article available for those who may want to search for it in the future, who may want to use it as a reference to compare with some future quake? Moncrief (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, whatever. As of now I will vote speedy keep for any earthquake article nominated for AFD. Full stop. The precedent has been set as far as I'm concerned and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS will no longer apply. 23skidoo (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the harm in keeping the article. If there is enough information to form an article, and the event makes national news for nearly an entire day, then why shouldn't it stay? This is an encompassing encyclopedia, and it should keep significant events like this. Perhaps the Whittier Narrows earthquake or the 2004 Parkfield-San Bernardino earthquake should be deleted as well as for they were of similar magnitude. I dont think there is any question that this was a significant earthquake. Rorry1 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the Richter scale is logarithmic (I believe it is), a 6.0 earthquake would be about twenty times stronger. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're ready to vote "Speedy keep" on all of these articles? Good thing, to, since deleting this would mean deleting the 168 articles on that page due to your idea of "precedent". --haha169 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is silly to say a 6.0 would be 20x stronger. I was in Northridge, and this one felt stronger than Northridge. Had this one been 20x stronger, LA would be in ruins and a tsunami would be on its way to Japan. That is a really silly statement. You act like we had this little shake. It was no little shake. It was stronger (at least in Orange County) than Northridge was. In Orange County, it was undoubtedly the strongest quake in our area in 30+ years.Rorry1 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically, not perceptually. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SNOW applies when the majority has policy on their side. Here, it is not clear that that is the case. A closing admin could very well decide to delete the article, depending on his or her interpretation of competing policy arguments. This is not a vote, etc. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is: WP:SNOW isn't a policy. Oh yeah...it actually isn't. Besides, this article was started less than a few hours ago! You can't expect an article to be created that quickly, especially since the event itself only occurred a few hours ago.--haha169 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to imply that it was. Policies are few, but do include WP:NOT and WP:RS. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what Wikipedia isn't - but the fact remains that the "revamping" template is still there, and the article is still constructing. It's seem some big jumps, and some media outlets still have to get their game on! Additionally, you can't delete an article that's nominated to go on the Main Page - since its good enough to be considered. I seem to remember what 2008 Sichuan earthquake looked like when it was on the main page. Honestly, just wait. --haha169 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is pushing it--5.4 magnitude? But it was located in SoCal, and thus there is WP:RS available, most of which is present in the article. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody was killed or injured. Why are you making an article about this? Forego (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is precedent on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake. In both cases, I said on those discussions, "Earthquakes in California less than 6.0 with little or no casualties or damage is not significant or notable enough". Both earthquakes were in fact less than 6.0 magnitude and with little little or no casualties or damage ... and thus these articles were eventually deleted for that reason, WP:NOT#NEWS, and some other comments similar to ones post above in this discussion. Since the earthquake is less than 24 hours old, the article now in question already is plagued by recentism, and there are a lot of comments above asking to keep. Since I doubt there is enough consensus now to delete at this moment, I am staying neutral for now, but I reserve my right to change my vote to delete before this discussion is closed, or the option to repost this article back on AFD a few months later. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any earthquake in the Los Angeles area exceeding 5.0 is significant because of the population of the area. The one in New Zealand affected hardly anyone. The Alum Rock one affected just a few thousand. This earthquake affected a 100 mile radius with a population exceeding 21,000,000. A 6.0 may not be significant if it were in, lets say, the High Desert of California, because of the lack of population. Also, there are over 20 earthquake articles on Wiki right now for earthquakes in the 4.0 and 5.0 range...most recently the 2008 Earthquake in Indiana which affected less than 5% of the number of people this earthquake affected today. You need to look beyond the magnitude and look at the number of people affected, the area it occured in, and how the media reacts to it. Rorry1 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to look at the overall historical perspective (especially in terms of California's earthquake history) and judge in regards to WP:RECENT when the event happened less than 24 hours ago, and how the LA area, the media capital of the world, reacts during that short period of time. Thus, of course you are going to get more of the media frenzy from the news outlets. Again, I am staying neutral because I cannot make a sufficient judgment until more time has passed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I empasize California's earthquake history. California, an area of the world with a lot of earthquake faults and a history of large earthquakes, does currently have strict building laws in place so most buildings and structures should be able to withstand a 5.X earthquake. So it would be no surprise that such a tremor would result in little or no damage and injuries, unlike a place like China. If in several months, the content of this article can be trimed to a few non-trival paragraphs, I would have no objection to merging it into a List of earthquakes in California. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, to see how this goes. Chances are it will be regarded as non-notable soon enough, but who knows yet? I'd add a comment that I felt a considerably stronger earthquake two weeks ago, and wouldn't for one moment have considered it Wiki-worthy. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This earthquake did both damage to structures and caused injuries. Michaelh2001 (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very Strong Keep - This was featured in several notable new sources, it is definitely notable. Just because its magnitude is small proves nothing. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 00:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This happened... earlier today? (That would explain why so many editors remember it.) Minimal damage? Belongs to Wikinews, then. An event of this kind is notable when it gets reported in newspapers at the other end of the country. If the Montreal Gazette doesn't mention this earthquake tomorrow, I'll change this to a delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the bigger news would be that Quebec was annexed to the United States? According to you, Quebec is now part of USA. Rorry1 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Originally estimated at magnitude 5.8, it was the strongest earthquake to occur in California since the 2004 Parkfield-San Bernardino earthquake,[3] and the strongest in an urbanized area of southern California since the 1994 Northridge earthquake.[4]" Shouldn't this alone guarantee notability, no matter how recent this is (with sources, that is)? There were injuries, despite little damage and no deaths. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can affect the lives of 7 in 100 Americans. It can cause significant damage. It can be the largest earthquake in Southern California in 13 years. But if it doesn't kill anyone.....its not notable for some editors here. Always puzzles me how we can have such insignificant articles on Wiki, but yet a natural disaster is not important enough for Wiki. Rorry1 (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been that way for a long time. A lot of articles degenerate into fancruft, while franly important articles like these are ignored in the systemic bias. It's even worse for Africa and Asia. But don't worry, this one will be kept. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a moderate earthquake in a very very populated place that has received high amounts of media coverage including international mentions. Its an informative article that is clearly notable in my opinion. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is fine because the Earthquake was medium (5.4) so it maybe a major earthquake. Earthquakes that are 4.9 to 0.0, should not have an article. Jet (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came here for information about the quake, only to find that some of you Wikipedians are trying to take this article down. It is clearly notable. It has been getting national coverage, and is the strongest quake in 14 years to hit LA. This isn't somebody trying to make a dumb article about some 3.0 earthquake that hit his hometown, this is a notable earthquake originally estimated at 5.8 (downgraded now to 5.4, but they're still working on that). It has been getting heavy media coverage all day and probably will still be in the days to come. Just because nobody's died yet doesn't mean this falls under WP:NOT#NEWS. Lexi (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOT#NEWS means one day's worth of RS media coverage, no matter how widespread, just doesn't cut it. If it keeps getting coverage in, say, two weeks, then we should probably consider having an article on it. As is, I predict it will rapidly become nothing more than a trivia question. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, the folks at WP:QUAKE (including myself) will never allow this to degrade into trivia. Honestly, why do we need to cover every Simpson's episode while we don't cover an event wich injured several people? For God's sakes, it has only been one day, so give it a chance! Most earthquakes are only covered for a few days, then it all stops. And from that few days' coverage we have 2002 Iran earthquake, a Good Article soon to be FAC. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the probably rhetorical question, I don't see a whole lot of value that Wikipedia can add vs. what news outlets will cover--certainly not within the first 24 hours. "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." seems written for just this sort of article. Obviously, that's a view not widely held amongst participants on this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Wikipedia covers the facts....the statistics of the earthquake, damages, fatalities, etc. The news covers peoples emotions, peoples reactions to the quake, individual response, speculation, etc. There is a BIG difference between this encyclopedia entry and the LA Times article on this topic. Its doesn't take much to compare Wiki to LA Times and see the clear differences.75.47.164.158 (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not News is meant to be applied with at least a minimal degree of common sense and judgment. Those who actually want to not cover anything that appears in a 2008 newspaper should try to change the rules to that effect (or, much more likely, spin off a different wiki), not nominate like this. DGG (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is really no reason to delete this article. The event is certainly notable and the article is encyclopedic.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, at least for now. It doesn't seem a particularly significant earthquake in historical terms, but it has received plenty of press coverage, which is reason enough for us to have an article on it. Terraxos (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were a 7.0 with extensive damage and major injuries/deaths, or a 5.5 in a place not known for earthquakes, this would be notable. A sub-6 in a place where earthquakes are planned for, with zero deaths and only very minor damage, is a waste of mainspace. The only truly notable thing about this earthquake is that it was heard live on The Jim Rome Show. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, you just answered your own question! Los Angeles has not experienced a sub-6 magnitude quake since 1994, and there has been a complete lack of quakes at all for the past few months! This is quite notable all right. --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You totally missed my point, and sounded like a fool in the process. A sub-6 magnitude quake since 1994? Technically a 2.0 tremor, which is nearly a daily occurence for L.A., is a "sub-6 earthquake". Los Angeles these days is built so that anything under 6 won't really cause serious damage. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 04:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Waste of space" as a criterion for deletion?? I really think you need to read [3]. Moncrief (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there was damage to significant structures, such as Pomona City Hall. No deaths yet reported, though. Calwatch (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too small to be likely to have any long-term historical significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to WP:CRYSTAL. --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - You're contradicting yourself. In this case, CRYSTAL would have us delete the article because nothing of significant importance has happened. What you said makes no sense. It hasn't been "long-term" yet, how do we know what long-term effects, if any, will occur? C L — 04:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your speculating that it is unlikely to have long-term significance. On wiki, you have to give it the benefit of the doubt, or else we'll be deleting articles left and right.--haha169 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not speculating, it's a fact. I never said it was unlikely, it might be as likely as the next sunrise; then again, it might be as unlikely as someone inventing a time machine. But probability isn't a factor; it's what has or hasn't occurred yet. C L — 04:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to my Keep above This is getting crazy. There is overwhelming consensus, (even by some of those opposers), to wait for a few days and see the results then. By then, it should be obvious whether or not to delete or keep. --haha169 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria shouldn't be whether there has been any casulties, or whether there was any structural damage or not. The criteria should be whether there are news articles and references about it, and there are plenty. This article and its references might be useful for later research when someone does a study on LA earthquakes and its impact on the LA community.enderminh (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I must say that as a Southern Californian, I did feel this thing. I also live near Los Angeles and get a better idea of its impact. Yes, damage was relatively small, but this is the strongest quake to hit an urban area of Los Angeles since the Northridge Quake. However, I do have to wonder if this quake will be remembered as little as a few weeks down the line, which makes this not really notable. There was damage, but I doubt there was enough to require notability (probably final estimates will be a mil or so at most). I think it will be an intresting article to show how LA is impacted by an earthquake or how building codes kept damage minimal (of course once USGS says something along those lines). Let's just wait and see how notable this thing is down the line. guitarhero777777 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were in Los Angeles, it was relatively weak there. For Orange County residents, this was the biggest quake since before Orange County was anything more than orange groves in the 1950's. The Northridge was big....to those of you in Los Angeles. But in Orange County, we felt a fairly mild shaking. This quake was definately stronger for us compared to Northridge. And seeing that there has not been a 5.0+ in Orange County since the 1950's...its fairly notable.Rorry1 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- On a side note, why is there another article on this earthquake? Chino Hills earthquake needs to be merged or deleted. guitarhero777777 (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Conflict Delete It was moderate yes but there is to much edit conflict and edit wars going on either it gets deleted or you Protect The Page so that vandals cant edit it, there is alot of edit wars going on because of this page...I think its best for wiki. Unless you protect it for atleast 2 weeks or so to stop vandals. or unregistored editors. MountCan (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had followed any other incident of significance on Wikipedia, you would know that they ALL have edit conflicts when they are fresh issues. So, whats the solution? Delete all the significant events that go on in the world because too many people edit it's article? Think about how silly that statement is. Rorry1 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MountCan, I have been monitoring this article, and there have been no incidents of vandalism as far as I'm concerned. That one IP you reverted, I reverted your reversion. It is non-essential detail. Aside of that revert, I have not seen many vandalism-related reverts at all. Only two - one that I reverted myself, and another which someone reverted me to address my concerns in my edit summary. That's it. No preemptive measures please. Also, "Edit Conflicts" are different than edit wars.--haha169 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 *'''Edit Conflict Delete''' It was moderate yes but there is to much edit conflict and edit wars going on either it gets deleted or you '''Protect The Page''' so that vandals cant edit it, there is alot of edit wars going on because of this page...I think its best for wiki. Unless you protect it for atleast 2 weeks or so to stop vandals. or unregistored editors. [[User:MountCan|MountCan]] ([[User talk:MountCan|talk]]) 05:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 :::If you had followed any other incident of significance on Wikipedia, you would know that they ALL have edit conflicts when they are fresh issues. So, whats the solution? Delete all the significant events that go on in the world because too many people edit it's article? Think about how silly that statement is. [[User:Rorry1|Rorry1]] ([[User talk:Rorry1|talk]]) 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
-::::MountCan, I have been monitoring this article, and there have been no incidents of vandalism as far as I'm concerned. That one IP you reverted, I reverted your reversion. It is non-essential detail. Aside of that revert, I have not seen many vandalism-related reverts at all. Only two - one that I reverted myself, and another which someone reverted me to address my concerns in my edit summary. That's it. No preemptive measures please. --[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
+::::MountCan, I have been monitoring this article, and there have been no incidents of vandalism as far as I'm concerned. That one IP you reverted, I reverted your reversion. It is non-essential detail. Aside of that revert, I have not seen many vandalism-related reverts at all. Only two - one that I reverted myself, and another which someone reverted me to address my concerns in my edit summary. That's it. No preemptive measures please. Also, "Edit Conflicts" are different than edit wars.--[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)