This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
I'm not sure that this meets the requirements of WP:EVENT - there were no casualties and minimal damage, meaning that the earthquake had basically zero impact, to quote the guideline "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable." Given that events included in Wikipedia need to show "enduring historical significance", I am minded to take this to AfD. Mikenorton (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A 6.5 earthquake in the Lower 48 is not "minor." Geologic events should not be measured solely by their effects on humans, and it will take some time for scientific research on the geological effects of the event on nearby active areas like Yellowstone to appear. The (admittedly larger) 6.9 1983 Borah Peak earthquake in the same area, which did manage to kill people, had significant effects on the Yellowstone system. This event is the second largest event to be recorded in Idaho, and the 5th largest event to be recorded in the seismic zone roughly associated with the Yellowstone hot spot track [1], which has almost constant low-level activity, and right now there are few people to observe and record in Yellowstone. Acroterion(talk)12:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know how else we measure impact. It may well be that scientific papers will be written about this event, but that is for the future, not now, or it's all a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mikenorton (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the "keep" result at the AfD, I've done what I can to improve the article (which by the way is "the mission of the Earthquakes Wikiproject" - to quote from the AfD discussion). It's still not notable in my view, based on the information that we have now, and part of the project's work is to hold articles to some sort of standard. Unfortunately I find that very few editors at AfD are familiar with WP:EVENT, which was created to help decide whether subjects that otherwise meet WP:GNG, but potentially fail WP:NOTNEWS, are notable or not. Mikenorton (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank gawd you have found time in your schedule to sprinkle your magical pixie dust here and make this into much more than us peons could have ever hoped for. I know that at least in my case, I am forever grateful and awed. Next time I have the arrogance to commence an article without consulting the grand poohbahs at WP:Earthquakes first, please report me to the nearest sanction board in order to remind me of my place.--MONGO (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
