Talk:2014 Southern Alaska earthquake
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Mikenorton in topic Is this notable?
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Is this notable?
editThe shakemap is not impressive, with an estimated intensity of only V (5 for those of you who don't understand Roman numerals). It was also very deep, one of the likely main caused for it not being of particular significance. Dustin (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, it doesn't meet any if the criteria for notability set out here. I suggest just redirecting it to the list of earthquakes and tsunamis in the United States. Mikenorton (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think the article creator initially thought that this was another 9.2 megathrust earthquake or something similar after misreading reports, so redirecting this may be the best path. The earthquakes focus was too deep, the magnitude too low, and the area too rural to be of major significance for a place like Alaska. Dustin (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Another view is that the article's creator may have deemed it notable due to the multitude of media outlets which covered it, as evidenced by the sources presented. Yet another misapplication of policy, as we exist in an age where corporate media outlets incessantly copy each other in an attempt to stay relevant, and everyone has a website which requires content to keep people interested. Questions of notability aside, something so lacking in content as this belongs in the Draft namespace first. We're selling ourselves short by treating that namespace as little more than a dumping ground for AFC rejects. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's why the notability guidelines for earthquake articles specifically states "Note that being mentioned in the mainstream media is not in itself evidence of notability, particularly if the news reports are only during the few days immediately after the event". As there is nothing to merge, I'm redirecting this as suggested above and unlinking the name at the list article. Mikenorton (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Another view is that the article's creator may have deemed it notable due to the multitude of media outlets which covered it, as evidenced by the sources presented. Yet another misapplication of policy, as we exist in an age where corporate media outlets incessantly copy each other in an attempt to stay relevant, and everyone has a website which requires content to keep people interested. Questions of notability aside, something so lacking in content as this belongs in the Draft namespace first. We're selling ourselves short by treating that namespace as little more than a dumping ground for AFC rejects. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think the article creator initially thought that this was another 9.2 megathrust earthquake or something similar after misreading reports, so redirecting this may be the best path. The earthquakes focus was too deep, the magnitude too low, and the area too rural to be of major significance for a place like Alaska. Dustin (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)