2023 Ojai earthquake: There's no encyclopedic value with these types of earthquakes.  Feel free to create something on WikiNews.  Dawnseeker2000 00:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : can we consider this an ongoing event and wait for a couple days more?  -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 01:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Place on hold for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks.  Can't hurt to put on hold.   The larger quakes that happen, are often preceded by one or more smaller quakes that seem harmless.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Close : This just happened.  Wait until the buzz dies down and revaluate.  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 03:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No deep or lasting coverage, no significant impact.  California gets shaken a lot most earthquakes there have minimal to negligible consequences.  This is one of those events.  Dora the Axe-plorer ( explore ) 11:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft until we can evaluate if further events will happen.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Hurricane Hilary (2023) as a trivia statement.  Hear me out.  Coming from someone who lives very close to the epicenter.  There were no damages as significant as the tropical storm.  Earthquakes happen fairly often here.  It is only notable that this is the largest one to hit Ventura County in 80 years.  However, it is quite rare to see an earthquake the same time as a hurricane.  Thus we can include a trivial blurb "On August 20, at 2:41 PDT, a 5.1 magnitude earthquake also hit Ojai, California. This was the largest earthquake to strike the Ventura County region since 1941."  Conyo14 ( talk ) 15:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Into Hurricane Hilary (2023) per above.  2610:130:109:252:114A:26AF:7232:745A ( talk ) 16:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and place a small section in Hurricane Hilary (2023) as above.  CrazyC83 ( talk ) 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2023#August as appropriate, so someone later on isn't confused about why an earthquake is redirecting to a tropical storm article; appropriate mention in the list-of's earthquake notes (and in the TS's article itself) should clear that up.  Nate • ( chatter ) 16:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Our lists of earthquakes are no longer dumping grounds for unwanted content so the article is not listed there and won't be in the future.  These lists now abide by strict inclusion criteria.  Dawnseeker2000 16:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not asking for a full section or article on it, just a mention on the page and redirecting it to there.  It should at the very least merit mention.  Nate • ( chatter ) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This event is not currently listed on that list because it does not align with that list's inclusion criteria.  We should not redirect there because no content exists; there is nothing there for any potential readers.  Dawnseeker2000 20:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Please do not bludgeon your rationale ; I'm suggesting a proper course of action, and we rarely say 'Wikinews and that's it' any longer as time has gone on.  And contrary to what seems to be a small group of WP:QUAKE editors, anyone can add an appropriate mention of an event to the page and defend their addition; articles are not fiefdoms and should never be that.  It's a unique circumstance that at least deserves note somewhere, and I see no finite 'criteria' about which we mention in list of articles.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't the Wikipedia of 2005.  It's grown, as has its editors.  Our lists of earthquakes used to contain all sorts of meaningless events because people thought that that was what Wikipedia was for.  It is not.  We discriminate, and that's what's happened to our lists.  They've become more refined and are not dumping grounds for deleted articles.  That's exactly what used to be done until some of us put a stop to it.  We're not going to go backwards here.  This article may very well be directed to the Hilary article, and that's fine, but for the people who wanted this to be something more that it is, I challenge you to write something that's worth writing about.  Writing about hurriquakes is literally kids stuff.  It has no encyclopedic value.   People just say "oh" and move on.  No one is going to learn anything useful from it.  That's why I put it up for deletion.  Dawnseeker2000 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge — Well…My idea looks to have been ignored.  Noting that I was the user who challenged the original PROD.  I noted in the PROD challenge that the topic is notable (high media attention for an earthquake).  That said, I also stated that a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion, should probably take place, since it probably isn’t notable enough for a stand-alone article.  But nonetheless, looks like a 2nd deletion attempt was started.  So I am absolutely strongly opposed to deletion, as I could probably pull 50+ WP:RS articles for this earthquake, but I am strongly supporting a merge into Hurricane Hilary (2023) , which already has a stand-alone article & is the reason for the high-notability (The term “Hurriquake” ( [90] ) came about because of this earthquake and hurricane).  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't use TV stations and newspaper articles as the basis for writing an earthquake article on the encyclopedia.  That's fine on wikinews.  Dawnseeker2000 20:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not "the basis" necessarily but the level of media coverage certainly matters and it has been pretty significant here Paradox society 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ?? ?  Most articles, especially natural disaster articles, have a lot of media sources (i.e. TV stations and newspaper style).  For example, Hurricane Ian has a ton of media sources.  If you want to talk about earthquake articles in general, then I point you to 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake , which has 610 sources, with easily 90% of those being reliable secondary sources , which are required on Wikipedia.  Like, literally a policy.  So, yeah, you might want to double check WP:RS , because it is necessary to have reliable secondary sources to help prove notability.  If you want academic sources/government sources for everything, then you won’t be able to have most natural disaster style articles on Wikipedia, especially ones in recent/modern history.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If all you've got are newspaper and TV stations as sources, then yes, you should really think again if it's truly an encyclopedia article that you should be focused on.  This topic is screaming wikinews.  Dawnseeker2000 22:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Um.  I’ll be honest.  What you just said would mean 2023 Hawaii wildfires shouldn’t be a Wikipedia article and should be purely Wikinews.  I mention that because every source on it is trivial government (i.e. basic X acres burned and X injured/missing/deaths) and media-based reliable sources .  A quick skim of the 175 sources doesn’t show a single academic publication source.  Note, this article is a High Importance for 4 different WikiProject, and has easily thousands of media publications about the topic.  If I understand your ideology, if newspapers and TV stations are the only sources used in an article, it means it is not qualified for Wikipedia, even if it would 100% survive an AfD discussion (conclusion could include keep/merge)?  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Any proper and neutral source works to source this event, and we don't screen out certain sources just because they aren't an inaccessible periodical.  It's like saying I Love Lucy should be deleted because it was a television series sourced by sources in its own medium.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are many types of articles on this encyclopedia alright?  Let's call them spaces.  The earthquake space is one where you don't really see successful articles that are based on TV stations and newspapers.  That obviously does not hold true in other spaces, OK?  I work primarily in the earthquake space and this whole argument to keep this flimsy article based on this hurriquake idea reeks of desperation.  And now, we see that The Weather Event Writer is very much vindictive as he has nominated a very much notable earthquake article for deletion .  So sir, you tell me who's confused.  Dawnseeker2000 01:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just gonna mention that I didn't even see your contest to the AFD, but a merge to Hurricane Hilary (2023) feels so much better than a stand-alone article here.  I already ! voted, just restating my opinion.  Also a note to the nom that articles are created based on two primary reasons: WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  Notable newsworthy events deserve their place on Wikipedia.  This earthquake just happened to coincide with a much more notable hurricane.  While I do feel this earthquake is notable for being the largest in Ventura County in 82 years, I feel it's more trivial, and probably doesn't make it overall notable.  No damages were immediately reported since a tropical storm tends to cover all of a/multiple states and the damage costs would simply be included in the hurricane costs anyways.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - passes WP:SIGCOV , the combined event was unique enough to merit its own article.  Since nomination, I've added some new sources and a bit more text.  Paradox society 20:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe on wikinews.  Dawnseeker2000 20:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your perspective, but it seems that there isn't any clear "official" policy or guideline around earthquake notability.  I also appreciate the points made in the essay you directed me to on our other thread, but I strongly believe that this quake, and the way it will be remembered culturally (a new word was coined specifically for this quake and that word was noticed and even publicly acknowledged immediately by Merriam-Webster) merits an exception to the proposed criteria set forth in the essay.  Additionally, screening this quake through the essay's criteria does not seem to explicitly rule out its notability, at least in the essay's current form.  Paradox society 22:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sounds a bit desperate to claim that this topic needs an encyclopedia article.  Dawnseeker2000 22:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Desperate?  I'm not particularly emotionally invested in whether the article ends up getting deleted.  Just stating my case.  Paradox society 02:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Hurricane Hilary (2023)#In popular culture .  The article at its current state can fit into that section, and plus, most of the sources in the article are around the term "hurriquake", which is why we have that section in Hurricane Hilary for it.  Tails Wx ( they/them ) ⚧ 04:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:RAPID .  Meets WP:N at this time.  For the time being, a merge is an editorial decision, and not a true WP:ATD here.  I'm fine with a merge in concept, but it shouldn't be the prescribed outcome of the AFD.  — siro χ o 06:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Minor earthquake without lasting impact or coverage.  WP:NOTNEWS .  Tercer ( talk ) 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete / Redirect to Hurricane Hilary (2023)#In popular culture .  The earthquake caused no injuries and little damage, and in isolation was not a noteworthy event.  The notability of the quake comes through the meme briefly popularized due to the coincidental timing of Hurricane Hilary and the quake, which, as noted above, there is an In popular culture section in that article.  Pertinent information not already there can easily be transferred.  Drdpw ( talk ) 00:17, 28 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect