Deletion of 2019 Lilbourn, Missouri Earthquake

Comment: The notability test for an earthquake is not just "has sources", because ''every'' earthquake ''always'' has sources: if it's felt by the general public at all, then one or more local news stories will ''always'' exist about that, and even if it isn't felt by the general public, the National Earthquake Center's database (which records every earthquake that happens at all) will always still have an entry. But our role here is not to simply replicate the federal earthquake database by indiscriminately maintaining an article about every single earthquake that occurs — our role is to maintain articles about earthquakes that can show a genuine, |ten-year test passing claim of ''significance'' (major damage, significant loss of human life, an unusual new type of earthquake activity that generates special study by seismologists, etc.), not just ''every'' earthquake that has ever happened at all.GNG is not just "count up the sources and keep anything that hits or exceeds two": it also takes into account factors like the depth of the coverage, the geographic range of the coverage, and the ''context'' of what the topic is getting covered ''for'', and some types of coverage simply don't count for as much as some other types. It's the same as the reasons why unelected political candidates are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because a handful of local campaign coverage exists; bands are not exempted from having to pass NMUSIC just because they have a couple of hits in their local hometown media about them accomplishing things of purely local interest; high school athletes are not exempted from having to pass our notability standards for sportspeople just because they had a couple of pieces of human interest coverage in their local media about their recovery from an injury; and on and so forth: GNG evaluates a lot ''more'' than just the raw number of footnotes that happen to be present. An article can have ''30'' footnotes and still ''fail'' GNG if those 30 footnotes all fail one or more of the depth, range and context tests
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT)

Comment: Meets . A topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As others have said, pretty much every earthquake that gets felt, end even those that aren't, will be recorded by the USGS and will likely make it into local news stories. This sort of event is pretty . For the same reason we don't create an article for every EF0 tornado that knocks down a few trees or every car accident that causes a traffic jam
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: While it received attention in multiple sources, it fails , which is also a requirement to meet . See also OTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the ''enduring'' notability of persons and events." (emphasis mine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED||WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Does not meet . This minor earthquake appears to have only attracted routine coverage in local media
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRITERIA)